Oh man. I was hit by a car from behind while cycling like Seth 2 months ago. The car was travelling at 50mph and if I had been hit straight on (I was hit by the sideview mirror) I could have easily, easily been in Seth's shoes. (I was in the hills and had to be helicoptered to the hospital)
I'm not sure how to describe it but I'm sitting here in front of my Linux desktop feeling really really uneasy. I tend to laugh off the accident these days but it's really hitting me that I could have been dead and not be able to write this post.
This really makes me feel sorry for people who live in countries that do not encourage cycling.
I was born and raised in The Netherlands. Every Dutch friend and family member of mine learnt cycling as a small child. Many of them still cycle daily without a helmet, special clothing, or whatever. I cannot remember anyone having a serious accident. Two persons I know broke their arms, but in both cases there was no car involved (icy roads).
The difference? We have bicycle lanes. Many of them. They are often separated from the main roads. When there are lights, there are often separate bicycle lights. Besides that, laws are highly in favor of pedestrians and cyclers. For instance, a car driver is always responsible for paying 100% of damages of children under 14 and 50% of damages of those over 14. So, if a 40 year old cyclist is hit by a car, and 75% responsible for the accident and the car driver 25% responsible, the car driver still pays 50% of the damages of the cyclist. One of the results is that drivers of motorized vehicles tend to be more careful.
tl;dr: ask your government to make more cycling lanes and pass laws that favor pedestrians and cyclists.
What are the traffic rules like in the Netherlands?
Every time there's a bike story on HN, there's always a long side thread about bicycles not stopping at lights, going the wrong way down one way streets, etc etc, so I'm curious what happens in a place with mature infrastructure.
Every time there's a bike story on HN, there's always a long side thread about bicycles not stopping at lights, going the wrong way down one way streets, etc etc, so I'm curious what happens in a place with mature infrastructure.
Pretty much the same things. Even as a cyclist I am amazed what other cyclists pull off wrt. to violating traffic rules.
But I think the difference is that most car drivers are or were also cyclists and the law favors cyclists, so car drivers tend to pay attention at intersections.
on a bike I feel much safer if I can see the traffic coming towards me... as opposed to riding on the right side of the street... might be a little more dangerous at busy intersections though..
According to this: http://top10hell.com/top-10-countries-with-most-bicycles-per... (no idea about veracity of that data), Netherlands claimed 16.5 million cyclists cycling 2.5 km/day on average; compared to US with 100 million bicyclists cycling an average of 0.1 km/day.
So if we assume those numbers are right that gives 200 deaths in Netherlands for 15,000 million km cycled per year (16.5 * 2.5 * 365) ; versus US where there were 677 deaths for 3,650 million km (100 * 0.1 * 365).
This makes cycling in US 25 times a dangerous as Netherlands: Netherlands has 1 death per 75 million km cycled while US has a fatality every 5.3 km.
In comparison, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in... says 1.16 fatalities for cars per 100 million vehicle miles travelled, so one death every 86 million kilometers -- safer than cycling in Netherlands by distance, much safer than cycling.
No, when there are no bike lanes the instruction is to ride on the car lane, on the right.
But there are enough bikes around that the drivers are always aware of them. And usually the drivers themselves are bike riders, or at least mostly everyone in their families is.
This probably helps cyclists get support from the people there. I guess it is a chicken and egg problem. I have been almost hit many a times by cyclists who think they are supposed to ride on the sidewalk. I suppose they don't know any better.
I am stealing this soapbox to remind everyone (I assume some are cyclists):
* Never ride on the sidewalk, ever.
* Never ride against traffic.
and finally, I don't know how to enforce this without a flamethrower/rocket launcher:
* Do not let cars force you off the road. You have the right to a full lane. A car may not ride beside you in the same lane.
We read about cyclists following the rules getting hit by idiot drivers and think it might be safer to ride on the sidewalk. Maybe statistics shows more cyclists get injured on the road than on the sidewalk.
However, this anecodote is apt. More pedestrians get hit by cars on sidewalk than in the middle of the road. This does not mean pedestrians should walk in the middle of the road. Similarly, more cyclists get injured while riding on the road. That does not mean you should ride on the sidewalk.
The Netherlands doesn't have a sizeable auto industry with politically powerful unions in key political states. Unfortunately, the American auto industry bends government at all levels to its will...cars own the road and everything is designed around the auto here.
Riding a bike does not have to be as dangerous as it is in most places in the United States.
Here[1] is an interesting video on how the Dutch got their bicycle paths.
From the intro:
"The Netherlands has the world's largest number of cyclists, but it is also the safest place in the world to cycle. That is largely because of the perfect cycling infrastructure that can be found throughout the country. How did the Dutch get this network of high quality cycle paths?"
The more important difference is safety in numbers e.g. drivers will look over their shoulder before turning right, because usually there is a bike. Drivers are conditioned to take into account bikes and their erratic driving.
I agree, when driving a car in the Netherlands you always expect a bycicle even when there is non. It also helps that in case of an accident between a car and bycicle the blame almost automatic shifts towards the driver of the car.
I bike commute in Boston (Live in Somerville, bike into Boston), and while there's definitely a risk, I feel pretty safe doing so - there are a lot of good bike lanes that make it possible. I definitely agree with your recommendations - need to be very aware of the cars around you (assume everyone in a car is an idiot/out to get you), and I wear a neon jacket, along with lights when it's dark. I definitely feel like it's only a matter of time until I get doored, though. . .
As former Somerville to Boston year round bike commuter (I' now in SF), I just wanted to tell you to rock on and stay safe. :-)
I know a good number of bike commuters in Boston and we've all gone down at some point, some in worse ways than others, but I don't think anyone has been doored too badly, which was always my biggest fear. In my case, I was hit from behind while riding with my lights on in a bike line (Somerville Ave) and thinking I was hyperaware of the cars behind me (the car drove off, but I'm pretty sure it was a drunk driver from the erratic driving). In a friend's case, a police car without its sirens on in JP blasted through a red light and hit him head on. Both of these accidents and most of the serious bike incidents I know of occurred at night. I'm actually more afraid of darkness than doors nowadays.
Not in the US: I have not seen a single US city yet with proper bike lanes. At best (and this is rare) you're separated by a solid line which is not enough. But most of the time you're basically on your own.
I just looked up the scene of the accident at 1700 Hillandale Road, Durham on Google Street View. If you're on a bike there's nothing for you - you're like a slow engineless motorcycle. This is _very_ dangerous.
In the US, we've got groups like the Tea Party, who think bike lanes are part of a UN conspiracy to take our guns. This can make it controversial for a city to consider bike lanes.
Google "agenda 21 bike lanes" for the sad details. There was a good New York Times story on this, too. [1]
I'm a Durham resident. The city as a whole does not have great accomodations for bikers on the roads. It has some great bike paths, but in places where that isn't an option you generally are on the road with cars and very little leeway to get out of the way.
It's difficult to look at the Google Street View and get an accurate feel for what's really happening here on Hillandale. If you put 1700 Hillandale in, you're greeted with a massive multilane freeway interchange. However, this accident appears to have taken place further down the block when it narrows to two lanes. (See the photo in the linked story.)
Witnesses told police that the car, a late-1990s or early 2000s model, slowed quickly and swerved before hitting Vidal and continuing north on Hillandale Road.
I would not yet attribute that this was intentional (especially if the driver slowed quickly.)
The more likely scenario here is that the driver was distracted, did not realize that there was a cyclist in the lane - perhaps made worse by lanes narrowing - and slowed quickly and swerved to try to avoid the accident.
It seems especially unlikely that this was intentional when he turned himself in the next day.
Of course, yes it does happen that drivers try to scare or even harm cyclists for fun or because they believe that cars should be the only road users. But I don't think that's what happened in this case.
most drivers do hit cyclists on purpose, to "teach them" not to ride on the street (street is for cars).
besides, most of the time there is no responsibility for the driver (I advice you to browse through "cyclist hit" articles on some pro-cyclist sites).
Story usually goes like this:
I also were hit by a car last year. No responsibility for the driver. As I was unconsious the driver was free to tell anything. It ended with police determinig that I was cycling peacefuly and suddenly my front wheel fell off.
If you wonder why I didn't go to court, my aunt is a judge, I asked her opinion and she convinced me thet I would just waste money - a person she knows personally takes care of those types of cases (main court - after which you might not appeal anymore), and she just doesn't like cyclists, so she makes sure drivers don't get "abused". (Poland, "Województwo Łódzkie" region) - that case is NOT special, simmilar stuff happens all over the world.
That said, I doubt if it's most accidents. Here in Boston, where the roads are all pretty terrible, there are bicycle accidents all the time. The roads are bad enough with just cars on them, but throw bicyclists into the mix and it's downright scary. I drive, and dealing with bicyclists is a nightmare. For every rule-following bicyclist, there are 10 who change lanes side-to-side, who pass on the right through an intersection (this one drives me crazy), blow through stop lights thinking that a quick glance for traffic is enough.
Unfortunately every year someone gets hit around here, usually by a bus. I haven't read much about any intentional accidents--usually it's a bicyclist that tried to pass a bus on the wrong side and the bus turned (wide turning radius). Or blowing through an intersection against a red when they didn't realize that it wasn't clear. It's terrible, but not "intentional". Maybe it's different elsewhere, but saying that most accidents are intentional seems...bold?
Uhum, sure... Most people would never deliberately hurt other people. It's just not normal to think that a person would purposefully aim a vehicle at another human. If you really strongly believe what you wrote there - you may want to consider your world view a bit unhealthy. Edit: (or a result of PTSD from living in a really awful place).
Makes me wonder about wearing a helmet, regardless of the heat and the gooflyness. On the other hand, I mainly ride the bike where there is little traffic anyway.
While I understand the safety arguments for encouraging people to ride on separate bike infrastructure, I generally think this is a pretty short-sighted attitude; cycling will never achieve the level of convenience necessary for it to attain a reasonably high transportation modal share if the recommended practice for cyclists is to take circuitous recreational paths through parks instead of the much-more-direct routes available to motorists. Look at any cities in Europe that have reached moderate cycling modal share (Amsterdam, Copenhagen, etc.), and you'll see that while grade-separated cycling infrastructure is common in high-traffic areas, it follows the same routes as cars (complete with traffic lights), and that cycling on same-grade painted lanes is common in lower-traffic areas. Nobody is pushing cyclists in these cities onto inefficient completely-separate bike infrastructure.
I don't think there are too many people arguing against wearing helmets, as an individual choice. It may turn out that helmets don't do much, but you're probably not any worse off for wearing them (except maybe sweatier in the summer, etc.). Lots of cycling advocates do, however, advocate against mandatory helmet laws, which have a whole host of negative effects that don't apply to the individual-cyclist-decision case.
Just to add more fuel to the bike vs car fire: Did anyone else catch that the driver was driving with a revoked license? [1] Clearly he shouldn't have been operating a vehicle and probably had a history of dangerous driving. But hey, this is America, we gotta drive.
Personally, I find it odd that traffic laws in US actually mandate (!) that bicyclists are to use the roadway and not the sidewalk.
Growing up in former USSR, I, along with other kids, used a bike to get around and for pleasure and have always stayed on the sidewalk (I don't think there were any laws about bikes).
From experience, I feel there's very little chance of injuring anyone, and even if it does happen - it is likely to be much less frequent and much less serious than what we observe with the bikes sharing the road with the cars. On rare occasions (rural locations) where there was no sidewalk - you'd ride towards oncoming traffic, same as what common sense recommends for pedestrians - so that you can see the cars and can avoid them if situation calls for it. That's probably illegal in US, since it appears that bikes here are somehow deemed more like motor vehicles and not pedestrians.
To conclude - I think the status quo is misguided (originally wrote stupid) and dangerous and traffic laws oughtta be changed to put soft squishy humans on two wheels on the sidewalks.
I always use the sidewalk when biking (legal in my area), but, besides the law, I can see some arguments against it. For one, many sidewalks are in bad repair, so if you have a bike designed for the flat surface of a road, a bumpy sidewalk can be a problem. I have a BMX-style bike, so no problem for me...the bumps are fun.
Another point is, even if it's a nice sidewalk, you generally can't go as fast as the road because of the danger of running into pedestrians and other random obstacles like fire hydrants, telephone poles, etc.
Yet another point, is that I hear very frequently that it's statistically safer to ride on the street. I haven't found a solid source for this though, so maybe it's not true. Or maybe it's true for a certain style/attitude of biking that doesn't apply to me. In my town, I certainly feel much safer on the sidewalk. Perhaps I have a higher chance of a minor injury on the sidewalk, but I will take that over a lower chance of getting hit by a car.
Generally, my attitude while riding is that I'm a pedestrian who can move a little faster than walking-speed, not an automobile that can move a little slower than driving speed.
I used to think as you do concerning the pavement. However, experience cycling[1] has taught me that the pavement is not a safer place to cycle. Cars expect slow-moving pedestrians on the pavement, not fast-moving bicycles. Consequently, cycling on the pavement leads to a lot of collisions with cars as they pull in/out of driveways.
[1] In Oxfordshire, UK -- this may be inapplicable to the US.
You go as far as to say that riding a bike on a sidewalk is not a safer place for the bicyclist as compared to riding it on a roadway along with cars? I'd expect you to be in a minority in this, your experience must be very different from mine.
The way I see it - if my 13 y/o daughter takes a bike to go to convenience store a couple of blocks down the street to get some ice cream with friends - I sure hope she breaks the traffic laws and stays on the sidewalk.
I don't know if it's safer but it is still really stupid to use the sidewalk. Not for a kid, your 13-year-old would not be told to use the street.
But I live in Chicago and, like you, used to think that it would be safer to be on the sidewalk because of the really stupid drivers that we tend to have here. A few days after making that decision, I nearly hit a person coming out of their house. There was no way for me to see them and not way for them to see me. As a pedestrian, I've been nearly hit coming around corners and I also barely managed to avoid getting hit from the front by a jackass who wasn't paying attention.
It's just not very safe for the pedestrians. There are so many circumstances where it's impossible to avoid a collision.
Although I will say that I am shitting bricks every time I ride on the street, even if I am on a bike lane. Most drivers are really good and they pay attention, but there are some that are just fucking stupid. They have no idea what the laws are and they think a bike should be on the sidewalk so they drive erratically to get me off the road or they honk and yell at me even though I'm doing everything right.
Yes, I would go that far. But, as I said, perhaps my area is unrepresentative. There are quite a lot of cyclists in Oxfordshire. If you cycle on the pavement, the cars don't expect you. If you cycle on the road, they usually do.
I suppose I should add the caveat that very young cyclists are better off on the pavement even here. When I take my little sister to the shops, I have her cycle on the pavement. That's because she can't cycle in a straight enough line for the roads to be safe.
Most places in US children (and adults on bikes accompanying those children) are allowed to ride on sidewalks by law. I do find it safer to ride on the roads though mainly because of dogs, joints, and car's from driveways and making right turns. But the main concern is that on a sidewalk if I were going as fast as on the road I would be a danger to not only myself but other pedestrians.
Locally you can identify a subdivision construction date pretty well as pre/post 1990 because post 1990-ish means no sidewalks. Post 2000 are of course all McMansions stuffed in like sardines, but there is a decade or so of normal houses without sidewalks in the 90s
I live in an area where population has been vaguely constant since around 1900, so we don't have many subdivisions like that, but I can imagine someone living in Las Vegas or parts of suburban CA may have never seen a residential sidewalk before. For those folks, residential sidewalks are pretty much like urban downtown sidewalks except much narrower, thus the areas with sidewalks tend to ban bicycles on them, there just isn't space for pedestrians to safely share with bikers. Seriously, only like 2 feet wide in spots.
The sidewalks in my area can't accommodate pedestrians and bikers at the same time, but I still use sidewalks while biking, and just hop off onto the road when I need to pass a pedestrian. Can't say it has been a problem for me. If I don't deem the road safe enough for the few meters required, I get off my bike and walk until the sidewalk is clear again. This of course doesn't work for everyone's type of bike and/or style of riding, but just thought I'd share my perspective.
This article, with some data about accident rates in various for/against traffic situations, disagrees with your intuition about riding against traffic:
If the US had bike lanes, and bikes didn't choke traffic back to 8 mph as I see them doing every day on major streets, causing a half-mile backup[1], I think the US would be more friendly to bikes.
The problem is a sub-set of bike riders who generally are weekenders and seem to take pleasure in holding up traffic because it makes them feel important. Then in retaliation, there's a sub-set of car drivers who become enraged by this and act out typical road rage, except here it's a 2,000 lb vehicle versus a 48-lb vehicle with no external frame.
I don't think the solution is any of the following:
1. Car drivers suck
2. Bike riders suck
3. We need bike lanes!
I think it's going to require behavioral changes from both car drivers and bike riders, and probably a redesign of cities to be bike-accessible.
Back to the topic at hand: Seth's death is tragic and he will be missed. I think a lot of our rage comes from the frustration at losing someone who was such a talented contributor and also a person many of us admired for his personal traits as well.
___
[1] Montrose, Shephard, Memorial, Elgin and Richmond.
Even bike lanes may not be enough. I'd prefer separate roads. That's sort of the approach taken by the green belts in my city, which allow you to bike alternate routes to some major destinations. Unfortunately, it's mixed pedestrian/bike traffic.
The idea that bike lanes always make cycling safer is not universally accepted. Many cyclists believe that, at least in certain circumstances, it's safer to operate in the same lanes as motor vehicles. There are a number of reasons, but a couple of the main ones are increased visibility and reduced lane conflicts in right turns.
I don't ride my bike out on the roads because of the danger of being hit. I often marvel at the courage, audacity, and sometimes foolishness of those who are brave enough to ride their bikes on our roads. There needs to be a stronger push to makes this safer.
Bike lanes should be in every city in the country. Everyone would be better off if there were bike lanes and bike use was encouraged. I realize that this probably isn't OP's intended point, but it's worth mentioning.
I ride in the street every day, and violate our "no bikes on the sidewalks" rule constantly for my own safety.
Just last week I was almost hit while hogging the lane to make a left into my apartment complex by a car that thought it would be more fun to pass on the left (over the double yellow)... while I was making said left turn.
This was in broad daylight; I can only image what would have been the case had it been at night.
Kind of silly he was a programmer and should be logical, but then he rode a bike. It would be great if it was safe to ride around on our roads without a crash cage around you, but it isn't. Cycling is 1% of all trips and 2% of all deaths. If you can afford a car/taxi/shuttle/bus/etc. and value your life, you should not be getting on one.
The crime rate in San Francisco is well higher than the national average [1]. If you value your life, you should not live in San Francisco. It's the only logical choice.
Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US [2], and is empirically linked with dietary and lifestyle choices. If you value your life, you should not live in the US.
The leading cause of HIV infection in the US (by a large margin) is male-to-male sexual contact [3]. If you are gay and value your life, you should remain celibate.
Logical programmers will avoid all of these things.
I see your point and it makes me think of the bumper stickers that say, "LOOK TWICE. MOTORCYCLES ARE EVERYWHERE." It would help if there were an organized effort to make people think about cyclists. I think it also warrants a PSA.
In the Minneapolis/St. Paul area, there is. There are a lot of Share the Road signs, window stickers, etc., as well as other things that are either intended to raise visibility or have the effect of doing so (e.g. the bright green NiceRide bicycles everywhere). The City of Minneapolis and the Met Council (metropolis-area inter-city council) are heavily invested in biking, and there are additional movements such as Bike Walk Twin Cities which engage in regular outreach, visibility, and education activities.
In general, the Twin Cities are doing an excellent job of addressing bikeability from many angles.
You don’t account for the physical and mental benefits the exercise gives you. Take look at [0] for example, which suggests that life expectancy is actually higher for cyclists.
Are you saying that riding a bike is not logical? Minneapolis is pretty bike-safe. Bike lanes, commuter trails. Bicyclists should have helmets, lights and ride carefully at night.
I'm not sure how good Durham is, but I don't think this is the time or place to say that its just more logical to pay to get around your city.
I'm not sure how to describe it but I'm sitting here in front of my Linux desktop feeling really really uneasy. I tend to laugh off the accident these days but it's really hitting me that I could have been dead and not be able to write this post.