I think my original post's point is pretty simple and there is no need to make it sound so complicated. Wearing high visibility clothing makes you easier to be seen. The fact that some can still fail to see you does not invalidate the point.

Everyone is free to wear or not to wear whatever they want: high visibility clothing, gray T-shirt, helmet, sun hat, bare head... As long as I am not required by law to wear helmet when cycling, I'm all good.

Do you think Oakland, CA, enforces it's bike helmet law?

The problem with your statement in regards to helmes that we were disagreeing with isn't about whether or not the law is on your side or whether or not you have the right, or whether or not we care if you wear a helmet, there is no argument about that, the argument was about your statement where you said this:

On my ride today in midtown Manhattan, I saw quite a few cyclists wearing helmets, all were wearing gray, black, or mud-colored shirts that were similar to the asphalt color (even the helmets were similar colors). I was wearing a very high-viz jacket without helmet, no one around could have failed seeing me. Who's better off?


Great now I can't get if off the italics mode, anywho, you make the claim that you are better off wearing hi vis clothing and no helmet than the other riders who were wearing non hi vis clothing with a helmet...that statement is entirely wrong, it was a statement simply made so you could preach your own theology that helmets are useless, which isn't true by the way and we have posted reams of legit proof that in any court of a law would have completely overwhelmed the weak evidence that helmets don't work.

I repeat: wearing hi vi clothing makes one easier to be seen, which helps reduce accidents. Preventing accidents is more important than preventing head injury (and not limb injury) after an accident has already occurred.

You were the one that brought into the account of a driver hitting a yellow school bus, making the point that even if you are hi vi you may still not be seen and still be hit. Now let me get back at you in a similar argument: Even if you are wearing a helmet you can still get your head crashed and die in an accident.

Now back to my last statement in my previous post #6227 .

No one is actually arguing otherwise (thus, it's a straw man).

It's true for every single piece of injury prevention equipment.

And, you can do both:

Which could mean that people doing both (hi-vis clothing and wearing helmets) are better off than people who do only one of these things.

Yay, some common sense going on here, be carefull... There's usually some "proof" required...

No, your original statement implied that those wearing helmets but not hi-viz were not riding as safe as you. That's an assumption on your part, one that is probably false. Also, you stated that no motorist could fail to see you because you wear hi-viz clothing. Which is also incorrect.

Wearing a helmet can help in some few crash situations and lead to greater safety. Wearing hi-viz clothing can help with visibility, and being seen by drivers leads to greater safety.

Neither a helmet nor hi-viz clothing is some kind of safety magic bullet. Both may lead to greater safety, but there's no way to really compare or contrast the two. Both may help regarding a riders holistic personal safety protocol, but both could also be worn by a patently unsafe cyclist.

Your smug, self-congratulatory pat on the back for being safer than those with helmets, but who were not dressed like a highway worker, was not warranted.

When I am on my trike, I of course am wearing my helmet. I also am wearing hi-viz T-shirts and have two tall flags flying from each corner of my seat. I also ride with the thot that all drivers are crazed ignorant fools that are out to get me. That said, if I am hit on the shoulder of a road, it was NO accident!! The driver would have to have been totally irresponsible, and if they hit and kill me they should be charged with murder. And yes I agree that this killer that hit me doing 65 will kill me because my helmet will not save my life under these circumstances.

No they should not be charged with murder UNLESS they were driving impaired by an illegal substance or told not to drive, otherwise it's just an accident and people don't get charged for murder in accidental deaths. This fallacy that impregnates the minds of cyclists that somehow their special and if they have an accident resulting in their death the person who was at fault should be charged with murder is wrong and egoistical.

This in fact just a difference in thought in legal culture.
In the US I have noticed the right to drive is in fact a right. One must have the ability to manouvre and for that the automobile has been deemed to be the optimal choice for the individual. Thus situations where something goes wrong in traffic are deemed accidents more often than not. A murder would require intent and I have a feeling a murder with an automobile would be almost impossible to prove. Hence, if you want to kill someone, drive over them with a car.
Unfortunately although I live in Europe, my country thinks the car as a holy cow which shall not be touched, similiar to the US.

Now the real deal of dealing with car accidents is the way used in the Netherlands. It fits my legal mind frame as a law student much better than the idea that you are exempted from all responsibility if only you are driving a car
So how it goes in the netherlands. Every time you start up your car you acknowledge the fact that you are going to be driving around with a vehicle capable of deadly force, a de facto deadly weapon. Pursuant to this idea every accident that happens between car and anyone else is almost automatically the fault of the car driver. It can feel unfair in situations where a cyclist rides under the car from a blind spot. But the idea is that while driving a car the driver must account for everything and keep his/her speed so slow that no accidents occur. It is the responsibility of the driver that he or she never collides against a weaker road user, even if it means inching forwards 5mph.

This of course is in a country that has a functioning public transport and bicycle infrastructure.

The system mentioned above is not optimal for all situations of course, but it surely is better than what we or the US has.
What I think would be optimal would be a system where a driver who kills a weaker road user would be sentenced for murder of the third degree if the weaker road user could not be shown to be breaking the rules applying to said road user or the said road user was not grossly negligent of road safety or rules.
So basically rear ending a cyclist on an open road would automatically be murder, but driving over a cyclist who blew a stop sign would be somewhat more interesting and would depend on the speed of the cyclist, collision force etc. Driving over a pedestrian would have to be quite exeptional to avoid sentence for example someone hid behind your car before you start reversing (I have seen this happen...). Speeding and colliding with a cyclist would of course be worse than going under the limit (duh, the cyclist might even live if the collision was weaker). And it is a limit, not an indication of how fast you should be driving, a limit of how fast your maximum can be. You can drive under the limit if you want to. In fact depending on the car I drive I usually drive 100km/h on a 120km/h road assuming it has four lanes.

I'm sorry but all that you said is pure nonsense, if we sentenced every person who accidently killed someone there wouldn't be enough prisons to hold them and it would escalate each passing day, and for what, an accident? There has been accidents involving products that you and I buy, should the entire corporate officers be sent to prison,if not who? the CEO? Who? This is the same situation of a big company killing a smaller weaker individual as you mentioned. This is why we have liability suits and insurance to protect the small guy from an accident, but certainly not prison. Now like I said if you can prove malice than that's another story and I'm fully behind a murder charge, but an accident has no malice it just happened. Accidents usually happen because someone didn't follow the rules to the letter, we're not robots, we're humans and being human is to error. Then what do we do if an accident doesn't kill but injuries the party, put the at fault person into jail for assault?

Your thoughts are completely 100% nonsense on this issue, again it's coming from a cyclist who thinks we own the road and any accidental offense against us should be mean't with jail, nonsensical elitist attitude. I'm glad you're a perfect human being who has never ever had an accident of any nature...you'll be lonely in this world because you'll be the only person left not in prison for either a murder or assault of an accidental nature.

I had my thrill answering you're nonsense but no more, you can go on and on like a insane person in the Einstein definition of insanity all you want, let someone else be bothered, I can't because then I would be insane right along with you.

The "problem" here isn't the law, it's the eceptance of everyone having the right to drive, wheather actually being competent enough or not... Yes accidents do happen, but most are CAUSED...

To err is human. To kill someone with gross negligence is not. To rear end someone due to texting while driving is as good as it being intentional. If you text and drive is as bad as to drink and drive or just not care enough to give any room to a cyclist you are passing. A gross disregard for safety for others.
Now your point of view seems to be that if intention cannot be proven the case is an accident. Now let's assume someone died. Someone rear ended a cyclist due to being drunk or texting. But that individual didn't want to kill the cyclist so it's just an accident. Pay some money to the relatives of that cyclist and all's good. Except that someone is dead, a life ended needlessly and the family is in ruins because someone didn't pay attention while using the privilege they were given to maneuver a deadly vehicle

secondly it might be an accident in a sense, but the absolute disregard for safety of others should be heavily punishable.

Of course heavily punishable is my opinion by Finnish terms, not American which is in our point of view a bit... insane.
I could write an essay about the nature with which the American common law digs under the credibility of trust in the legal system, but that would be more appropriate in the politics and religion section (where I don't think I have a permission to contribute to... yet)
Heavily punishable by killing someone by accident in traffic with gross negligence in my point of view would be two to four years prison. But I also have a fairly strong legal vengeance instinct and I want to disregard all the studies saying that incarceration is not in many cases a good option if the individual should be integrated into society after the punishment.
That is why I'm now specializing in international trade law and arbitration and not criminal law to pursue a career as a district attorney.

Regardless of punishable by incarceration or no, every car driver should be held responsible and accountable for any deaths/injuries caused by said driver.
harsher punishments, greater accountability and greater police intervention for traffic infractions should make traffic safer for weaker road users (general preventative theory of criminality) as it has done in for example in Sweden, Netherlands and Estonia.

American law is far from perfect I give you that, But Finnish laws for punishment is not so great either, sure a murderer will get life in prison but typically these sentences are pardoned after 12 to 15 years served! I looked at some of your laws and punishments and their not all that great either. I believe a person who intentionally kills someone should get the automatic death sentence with one chance to repeal it and that death sentence must be carried out within 1 year not 15 to 20 years.

If a person is texting while driving they should be punished more then just a liability issue, but you were stating if ANYONE hit a cyclist, because it's big vs small, they should spend the rest of their lives in prison...that's the nonsense I was talking about. A person simply not seeing a cyclist for whatever reason etc cannot be sent to prison for killing them, if the person is drunk or texting then yes they should go away for life.

There is a real easy way to settle the texting and phone use while driving issue...simply set the GPS in the phone to shut the phone off once it detects a speed greater than 15 mph and less than 250, problem solved and it can be done today. Now if only we can shut down a drunk driver.

rekmeyata

Please tell me how a car hitting a cyclist or runner ON THE SHOULDER is an "accident". As far as I am concerned it is nothing more than totally irresponsible murder, and should be treated as such.

Once again, rydabent is mistaken, but fortunately is not in a position to set law or impose sentences. Did you ever consider a case where a person passes out due to a medical condition and hits a person on the shoulder? Life sentence for sure there. How about a Dr after a long two days at the hospital falls asleep? Irresponsible for sure, but murder? I just love it when people recreate definitions of languge to suit their own agendas, or foolish rantings. Mechanical failure? Never happens right?

You are truly lacking any sense in this matter. Some people have poor hand to eye coordination issues, and or can't judge distance and closing speeds adequately, and some tend to steer to where their looking too and before they know it they hit something. That doesn't even take into account people who had a temporary lack of attention. So there are a lot of issues that come into play that makes for a sad situation but doesn't make the person a murderer. And these "problems" that I and Howsteepisit pointed out are the results of most accidents, but again there accidents not a murder.

I have had friends killed by motorists on their bikes, so I know the feeling of losing a friend (actually friends) due to unawareness, but in instances except for one they were accidents pure and simple, I didn't go to the police station or to the court screaming that they be hung nor never thought they should be.

Get a grip on yourself man.

By the way Rydabent, We forgot to mention bad weather causes accidents that kill too, so all of those need to go to jail.

There are roughly 35,000 people a year that die in car accidents alone, not to mention other forms of accidentally killed people, so that means that about 35,000 drivers who were at fault all need to go to jail for life under your common sense? And you being so perfect of a driver, the average person has an accident every 17 years, out of those the average person will have a 15% chance in being involved in a fatality accident so you do have chance of that happening, and in a weird sort of way I hope it does so then you'll be singing a different tune...either that or I dare you to walk into the court pleading with the judge to sentence you to life in prison because your a murderer...I somehow think you'll be singing a different song instead.

The word accident is used WAaay too loosely around here, it's not like oops I typed the wrong letter accidently and have a spelling mistake... What the punishment should be seems to be more of a cultural difference, but not murder persay, as mentioned there's dozens of reasons why someone could run a person down who is on the side of the road. BUT MOST of them ARE CAUSED, even the Dr. who saved a dozen lives working 2 days not sleeping "caused" the "accident" by trying to drive home, should he be held responsible, how responsible? 1 month 1 year, 5 years, 10+ years in jail for killing a person is a different question... But responsible he is, IMO It's like deciding not to wear a helmet, you crash and get a big rash and a goose egg instead of nothing... That was caused, it didn't "just happen".

most accidents are not caused, get real.

This is just one site says 65+% driver error, 20+% driver didn't see the person, 13+% speeding, that's over 90+% driver fault the way I see it ... I found dozens of others, but most studies are work related, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...ts-happen.html

For some reason your site won't load.

Actually all accidents are darn close to 100% fault of someone, the question is who is at fault and why. Some people may blame weather but weather conditions means that person didn't slow down enough for conditions present. Mechanical almost the same thing, brakes or suspension failure the owner of the car didn't check their brakes or suspension components; a tire blew either the owner again didn't check the condition of the tires and or panicked when it blew and loss control of the car. In almost all cases, except maybe a rock slide the driver had some ability to control the situation better than they did either with proper maintenance or better driving skills or not driving when impaired or distracted.

Anywho there is actually a statistical time frame when most fatal accidents occur, between the hours of 6pm and 9pm 15.9% of fatal accidents occur during that time frame; the second most fatal time period is between 9pm to 12 midnight with 13.8% fatality rating; almost 30% of fatal accidents occur between 6pm and midnight...that's quite a high figure for that time slot but it figures because more drunks are out at night which accounted for 54% of those deaths! And yet the drunk killer might get a year at the most in jail if it's their first offense, that is the real crime. Most crashes by the way are not due to mechanical their due to driver error which of course the driver blames other factors but it's all about the driver. Saturday is the worst day of the week.

So the way I see it it's it much closer than 90%, but I buy your premises that it is at least 90%.

Hey folks, my original post said who's "better off", not who's good, so the reply that said neither was good safety-wise was not to the point. I was just making my point that (in my opinion) being highly visible w/o helmet is better than wearing helmet but be hardly visible to drivers. I understand doing both may generally be safer, but it would be even safer if you also wear a body armor. Everyone accesses his own risk/reward/probability/convenience with informed mind and sound reasoning and decides what to do. Enjoy your weekend under a helmet

sure, whatever you say.

rek

In the cases you mention, as far as I can see those people are irresponsible. Being irresponsible is no accident.