Abe_Froman

Correct.

If you're in a car, it's your responsibility not to run people over with it. If a driver ends up with a teenager stuck in the grill, it's the drivers fault. Slow down enough at intersections where youre not at risk of killing people. To NOT slow down is to make a pre-neditated decision that shaving 1.5 seconds off your commute is more important than the lives of other humans in your vicinity.

DrIsotope

Beyond Moth Effect and target fixation, there's the distracted driver-- if the person isn't looking for a cyclist, they're not going to see them, no matter how much fluorescent fabric they're wearing or how many flashing lights they have. Plenty of stories from bicycle commuters who get bumped or clipped by cars, despite multiple lights and neon-yellow windbreakers. My point is just as a marked crosswalk isn't some sort of magical barrier for pedestrians, a hi-viz jacket and a blinky on a cyclist's helmet doesn't guarantee they won't get hit by a car. It all might help. It all might make no difference whatsoever.

If the color of your shirt makes you feel safer on the bike, that's great. But that shirt has no magic powers, regardless of the color.

tagaproject6

IBTM to A&S

Carbonfiberboy 

Not only possible, it's true - it's the law there.

njkayaker

This is a strawman.

njkayaker

No, it's wrong.

Cyclists have a responsibly (and a legal duty) not to run red lights.

If people do stupid and careless things in front of you, you might not be able to do this.

If you really believe this, you shouldn't be driving.

This is dumb. Cars can kill people going 2 miles an hour.

Abe_Froman

So go 1 mph if you're still not able to keep from killing people.

njkayaker

Dumb. You can still kill people. The only "safe" speed is zero.

Abe_Froman

Then that's your speed. If you go over and kill somebody it's on you. I stand by my previous stance...your fault if you run somebody over at 1mph. You were going over your 'safe' speed.

wphamilton

Flashing headlights are used for various signals in traffic and if yours are flashing all the time it eliminates that. Not as big a deal on a bike where you don't typically use signals, but it is reasonable that it could cause confusion when drivers glimpse a flashing and look around for something "signaled" that isn't there. In UK for instance it means "you go first", or in France "look out I'm going through". Or it's typical in Europe to be an alert that someone is approaching from behind. It's customary for freight trucks to flash when you're clear to merge after passing them. Or the one I'm not fond of, "I'm driving dangerously at illegal speeds and you get out of the way, because I'm more important than other road users".

You could argue that a flash of the taillight is also a sort of signal because it only happens when someone presses his brakes, so it means "slowing". Also not a big deal on bikes IMO since we're slow or slowing compared to cars all the time anyway. But where traffic is mostly bicycles, that's not true and it's pretty pointless to have the tail light blinking. Or the headlight for that matter.

seedsbelize 

Kudos

timsmcm

I thought before I opened the thread it was going to be about ill fitting lycra and bad outdated graphics .

peterraymond

I think the ideal, yes I know we don't have this and never will, is for all the road users, including us, to work together to achieve, smooth, efficient, safe flow of traffic. No matter how we travel we all have to make some assumptions about what actions others will make. For instance, we drive 50 mph down the road in a car and we assume that the cars coming towards us at a closing speed of 100 mph won't drift 6 feet towards us across a simple painted line on the road. If we couldn't make some basic assumptions about the actions of others, transportation would be close to impossible.

I read about an accident where a woman was riding down the road to a restaurant where she was meeting family/friends for lunch. Apparently they were waiting out front for her when she turned left across the road to join then for lunch, right in front of a car overtaking her from behind. Was this the drivers fault because they couldn't stop in time and killed her? No, the driver was driving safely and the rider was totally at fault. It's not always the fault of the driver.

It is true that there is close to nothing we can do, other than stopping riding, to be totally safe. But, as has been pointed out, there are things we can do to be safer. It's really cost-benefit. Worse than the people who smoke all their lives and don't get lung cancer, any effort you put towards safety might not save you from a single accident, including the one that kills you, but that doesn't make safety a bad idea. It may, or may not help, but on average it does.

We have a responsibility to present drivers with predictable actions, even if drivers are all [insert your favorite insult]. Yes, it may not save our life. It may not save anyone's, but we should still do it. Actually we have a greater responsibility than do drivers, because we have better information. Some of us may do all our travel on bikes, but we still all know what drivers are experiencing. We may think it's unreasonable, but we still understand what pisses them off. We shouldn't refuse to do something because the world is not perfect. We should deal with the world as it is. I wave to thank people when I slow them down, even though I have the right of way. And, I try to deescalate. If they are pissed of, I still wave politely.

I suspect that one reason some drivers hate us is because they think we are sitting on our expensive bike feeling superior to them. And they're right aren't they? And some of us make it worse by making our attitudes obvious. I was driving home, with my bike inside my Mini Cooper, when a rider decided I was incompetent and that he would decide for me if it was safe to pass. Obviously he was "taking the lane". I'll tell you, fellow bike rider or not, there was no way that I was going to let that a%^& instruct me on safe driving. If he had not done that I would have looked ahead, slowed down if I needed to, and made sure there was plenty of clearance when I did pass. Fortunately, in Colorado it is legal to cross a solid double line to pass a bike, so long as it's safe. So what did his superior attitude accomplish other than pissing me off? In this case it made no difference in safety, I was just further over the center line when I passed. Passing clearance was the same. Time lost to passing was still zero. But, what about the guy who already hates us?

Go with the statistics and try to make the world a better place, even with the hopeless.

peterraymond

Wouldn't it be nice if we knew the actual details for crashes. Like headlights. Why do I care about drivers coming towards me? They're on the other side of the road. Yes, taillights. Those I understand. Then, cars from side roads. They have to see us before they enter the intersection, so they don't stop at their stop sign and then drive right into us as we pedal through the intersection.

So first, the list of causes, and then from that the list of solutions.

slowrevs

The foregoing is the most absurd statement I have ever seen on the Internet.

Cyclists riding out of lane when not entitled to by statute, not signalling well in advance of turning, turning from the wrong lane, not using lights at night, riding on the wrong side of the street, dressing "invisibly", not observing traffic controls at intersections or in construction zones, not paying attention to their surroundings and traffic are the ones at fault when they are struck by an otherwise driving-attentive motorist or trucker who is paying attention to what they are doing and observing applicable traffic laws. Cyclists who don't respect motorists' rights to use the roads within the law are "entitled" to reap what they sow. Even if they are the seeds of their own destruction

"Other humans" includes people in cars, trucks and buses, too Abe, not just cyclists or pedestrians.



To quote Charlie Brown, "Good grief."

wphamilton

Not because I'm biking, no. Commuting, I'm just getting home, neither superior nor inferior but just using a different vehicle. I can't really help whatever it is that they imagine that I think.

I honestly don't get it. Why did that make you hate him if it basically made no difference in what you needed to do?

woodcraft

You may have had a bike in the car, but you don't sound like a cyclist.

Maybe there was some crap on the road.

Teamprovicycle

High hwlmet lights are the biggest thing for me always have a rear helmet light its the same as a cars chmsl low lights are ok too i guess.

PepeM

Because he doesn't get to choose what is safe. Only I get to choose!

Dan333SP

Good point!

Carbonfiberboy 

I agree 100% with this. It's my responsibility to ride safely and predictably. It's not my responsibility or even a good idea to tell drivers how to drive their cars. I never indicate "safe to pass" or "not safe to pass." Then if something bad happened, it'd be my responsibility, wouldn't it? I've ridden with one of those "take the lane" riders for years. He's been hit twice. Total accidents, just that no one expected him to be out in the middle of the frigging road, so when things got interesting and drivers used their normal reactions to danger, he was in a bad spot. I've been after him for years to stop wearing asphalt colored clothing.

noisebeam

I agree with all but the bold. Cyclist are always permitted to ride 'out of lane' by statue under certain conditions so motorists should always expect cyclists to be 'out of lane.'

slowrevs

Not to be argumentative but cyclists are allowed to ride out of lane only when certain conditions are met, among them, traffic blocking the normal cycling area to the right or a bike lane, e.g., a trash truck or cop writing a ticket or delivery truck, etc., or if flooded, or if road conditions such as broken pavements, spilled oil or accumulated sand or tumbleweeds, etc., make it unsafe to ride to the right, and the like. Otherwise, cyclists are generally relegated to the right side or bike lane unless moving through lanes after signalling in order to make left turns or go straight ahead where "right/left turn only" lanes exist.

If a road is freshly paved or in great shape with unobstructed bike lanes and no stopping signs posted everywhere, motorists should not expect or anticipate cyclists to be riding out of lane.

By "out of lane" I refer to cyclists riding in the center of the lane for the purpose of obstructing auto and truck traffic. Don't laugh, I have seen it. Club rides two to four abreast and solo riders laying down s-curves while they ride.

I don't believe those antics are permitted anywhere, unless by permit under police sanction and oversight.

At least that's the way I understand the laws.

noisebeam

You misunderstood. As there are conditions that allow cyclist to ride 'out of lane' as you noted, other drivers must drive with the expectation any of those conditions may be met at any time place and therefore cyclists may be legally 'out of lane'. Even on a freshly paved road there may be a patch of glass in the right side of lane so a cyclist will be using the left side.

Pirkaus