
Is It O.K. To Kill Cyclists? - nether
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/opinion/sunday/is-it-ok-to-kill-cyclists.html?pagewanted=all
======
crazypyro
Does anyone have any data to compare the chance of a person at fault being
criminally charged in a deadly car-car accident (no DUI or hit-and-run) to
this effectively nil chance in deadly car-bike accidents? The article fails to
mention it, yet makes multiple comparisons.

Edit: Did some googling, found this article
([http://cironline.org/reports/bay-area-drivers-who-kill-
pedes...](http://cironline.org/reports/bay-area-drivers-who-kill-pedestrians-
rarely-face-punishment-analysis-finds-4420)) that finds that 60% of those at
fault in deadly pedestrian accidents are not charged in accidents. Of those
charged, many are not suspended. (Note the small sample size of 238) Does this
point to a larger problem of drivers not being held accountable, period?

This article ([http://www.gjel.com/blog/is-traffic-violence-sufficiently-
pr...](http://www.gjel.com/blog/is-traffic-violence-sufficiently-
prosecuted.html)) provides a small amount of insight into the problem. Note
this article is by an attorney and probably isn't free of conflicts of
interest....

~~~
fleitz
I've been in a few accidents and have never been charged nor seen anyone else
charged.

If killing someone in an accident is murder, surely injuring someone in an
accident is assault.

~~~
aidenn0
IANAL, but:

Accidentally killing someone is rarely, if ever, murder[1]. It is potentially
manslaughter if it happened while committing a minor offense, or doing
something particularly reckless[2].

Injuring someone would be battery, not assault, and similarly intent is
needed.

As far as I know, accidentally injuring someone is not criminal, unless the
accident happened due to reckless disregard for others' safety.

[1] Depending on the state, 2nd degree murder is possible if your actions
showed depraved indifference to human life. In other jurisdictions this would
be considered manslaughter

[2] IIRC states differ on whether or not a non-misdemeanor traffic violation
is enough to consider a homicide to be manslaughter. I think that in most
states an unintentional homicide that resulted from committing a misdemeanor
is considered manslaughter. Furthermore states differ on which moving
violations are misdemeanors. Also some states have vehicular manslaughter
laws, which I know nothing about.

~~~
fleitz
Yes, this is what I mean, no one is charged when accidents happen as long as
people were acting reasonably.

------
from_elsewhere
Why does seemingly every article about cycling, even if overall in favor of
it, end up sprinkled with appeals for the minority to behave? More
importantly, is this sort of appeal appropriate for the author to publish?

It's also interesting to note the author is a recreational rather than
commuter cyclist. His asserted empathy for motorists and fear of cycling is
partly thanks to the privilege of rejecting cycling as an everyday reality of
transportation. Can he, in his limited experience, truly understand the world
in which everyday cyclists live?

As I see it, this article's conclusion is akin to the following:

> So here’s my proposal: Every time you go out in public, from this moment
> forward, obey the letter of the law in every interaction everywhere to help
> white people (and police officers) view black people as predictable members
> of society who deserve respect.

This editorial insistence on empathizing with motorists paints cyclists as a
class of rule-breakers and hooligans, not a diverse and largely forward-
thinking group of citizens who happen to be united in their mode of
transportation.

In anticipation of dismissive criticism, I assert that from a cyclist's
perspective, this is an honest and meaningful comparison, not an over-the-top
exaggeration. I'd like to see the above questions earnestly addressed.

~~~
oldmanjay
What an emotionally charged appeal to victimhood

The way I see it, you can accept the reality that you're engaging in a more
dangerous activity and take the proper attitude, or you can rage about your
ideals from a hospital bed and hope that'll somehow make a difference.

As a motorcyclist, I simply expect that drivers are paying no attention, and
it's on me to protect myself. I can go your way, but that's cold comfort to
broken bones and torn skin - and yes, I have been wrecked by driver
inattention, so this is not merely academic.

I have a very hard time with this modern tendency to enpower victimhood, but
as my name indicates, I'm an old man. Might be a generational thing.

~~~
astrodust
"You were walking on the sidewalk, you had it coming when that car ran you
down."

Seriously? We're going to blame the victims here? Cycling should not be a
life-or-death activity, especially in designated lanes when observing all
traffic rules.

~~~
fleitz
"Cycling should not be a life-or-death activity" is it though, just like
driving a car is.

~~~
astrodust
If you're in a car and you get hit by a car you have much stronger legal
protection than if you're mowed down by a car when not in one.

Pedestrian? Cyclist? $50 fine.

That you face stiffer penalties for pirating a DVD or smoking a joint speaks
to how broken the legal framework is.

------
orthecreedence
> But studies performed in Arizona, Minnesota and Hawaii suggest that drivers
> are at fault in more than half of cycling fatalities.

I'd be amazed if this were true in SF. I'm an avid cyclist, love biking around
the city for fun or to commute, etc. The cause of most near crashes (and
crashes) I've witnessed are idiot cyclists thinking it's ok to blow through
stop signs or traffic lights, or to wildly cut across two lanes without
signalling and expecting the entire universe to notice them and stop for them.
When I'm driving, I'm hyper-aware of the stupidity I've seen when I'm biking
and try to take that into account when cyclists are around, and I don't blame
other motorists for getting pissed or even aggressive. Cyclists have this
incredible double-standard...they want to use the road, but they don't want to
share it. Sure, everyone who drives a car is an earth-destroying, gas-
guzzling, roided out freak who's trying to kill you, but isn't that all the
more reason to have some respect for _everyone else_ on the road?

Granted, I've had my fair share of asshole drivers turn right in front of me
without signalling or just merge into the bike line for no reason (prompting
me to "gently" tap their car window). Hell, I've even had people run red
lights and come within a foot of slamming into me, and I've been doored really
bad by someone getting out of a taxi, but to be honest I'm as cautious around
other cyclists as I am around cars.

Maybe it's just SF and it's the wild west here, but biking at rush hour is
just as bad because of other cyclists, not just cars. I think drivers would
hate us a lot less if we stopped at a stop sign once in a while and thought
about others besides ourselves (same goes for shitty drivers too).

~~~
MetaCosm
I can only speak for DC -- but it is the exact same here. I have seen fervent
defenses about why cyclists shouldn't have to follow traffic rules as well
(better visibility, mobility, etc) -- but all those arguments apply equally to
motorcycles, and inversely to large trucks... I am not sure we want 5+ rules
of the road...

------
forrestthewoods
Accidents happen. All the time in fact. By one calculation 17,589 per day in
the US [1]. Most of the time both people are in a steel cage and escape
unharmed. About 115 people per day will die (also [1]).

There is a level of accepted risk tolerance in our choosing to let people
drive cars. Accidents happen. People will get hurt. People will die. And you
know what. Yes. Yes it is ok. The benefits outweigh the cons by multiple
orders of magnitude (not that there is a unit of measurement).

You could ruin lives and throw drivers in jail but that just hurts society
even more (imo). Ruins lives, costs the state money, and doesn't even change
behavior. Accidents are accidents after all. You either have cars and accept
that there will be accidents or you get rid of cars [2].

So fuck it. Yes. Yes it is ok. Accidents happen. We should, of course, work
diligently to reduce risk and improve safety. And we do. But accidents will
happen and people will die.

[1]
[https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100109053104A...](https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100109053104AAZnCBc)
[2] Or maybe get rid of human controlled cars. Cyclists raise your hand if you
want to ride against the risk profile of a driverless car!

~~~
nether
> Cyclists raise your hand if you want to ride against the risk profile of a
> driverless car!

Driverless cars can detect cyclists:
[http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-04/28/google-
cars-c...](http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-04/28/google-cars-city-
driving)

So, a patient driver who sees me plus never road rages at me? This is one of
many situations in which a non-human driver is superior. Yes, I'd raise my
hand to that.

~~~
mwnz
Sure, I'd raise my hand. But this is a very strange point for the OP to raise.
Driverless cars are not at option at this time (calm down, I know they exist,
I cycle amongst them daily). In the future, sure.

------
alexpw
I dread passing a cyclist, and always wonder what the legal/criminal
consequences would be if the cyclist swerved in front of me while trying to
pass a parked car (no bike lane).

EDIT: I meant a two lane road. I'm in the left lane. Cars are parked in the
right lane sporadically. A cyclist is in the right lane, but veers into the
left lane to go around it.

I don't know whether to feel reassured or what, but I'd rather sky dive to
work than ride in the road while the average person drove by me.

~~~
maxerickson
In most U.S. jurisdictions, a bicycle is traffic, just like a car. If you
think they might take the lane, the legal thing to do is to leave room for it
to happen safely.

~~~
dllthomas
Moreover, if you're a bicyclist and there's no bike lane (or insufficient bike
lane) so you'll have to bike erratically if you don't take the lane then _take
the lane_. Signal, make sure it's clear, and do it early. The safest thing
everyone can be is predictable.

------
sshconnection
Also, since then, the cop who killed the former Napster COO was let off
without charges: [http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-milton-
charges-d...](http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-milton-charges-
deputy-20140828-story.html)

He was typing an email at the time of the accident.

------
revelation
Maybe some people here can rediscover their appreciation for the sanctity of
human life if we put a face on the issue.

Here's Derek Sivers blogging about the death of his friend Milt Olin:

[http://sivers.org/milt](http://sivers.org/milt)

(The deputy that killed Milt Olin was fiddling with his phone as he left his
lane and drove straight into him at speed. After the accident, he claimed Milt
had swerved into his lane. It took a prosecutor a year to finally conclude
there was zero criminality here.)

If you are okay with that, I await your comment.

------
fleitz
Motor vehicle accidents are generally not prosecuted as crimes, whether they
involve bicycles or not.

Bicycles are generally considered motor vehicles so accidents an accident
killing a bicyclist is largely treated the same as an accident killing a
motorist.

------
ahomescu1
Some European countries put the bike lane on the sidewalk next to pedestrians,
instead of on the side of the road next to all the cars. This always seemed to
me the safer option.

~~~
mxfh
I can assure you as a commute cyclist in Berlin that it's not. The less car
drivers see you as traffic the more dangerous it gets. Also the surface
maintenance there is just horrible compared to a proper road.

The single biggest threat to cyclists are right turning vehicles that either
don't see you at all or worse underestimate your velocity and try to overtake
you on the non- turning bike lane shortly before a crossing turning right
(just happened to me on Monday). So driving in the actual straight lane is the
safest option.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> I can assure you as a commute cyclist in Berlin that it's not [safer to bike
> on the sidewalk than in the street]. The less car drivers see you as traffic
> the more dangerous it gets.

I don't get this. Are they going to drive up on the sidewalk and hit you
because they don't see you as traffic? How do the pedestrians survive?

~~~
DanBC
Even with mostly seperate lanes for cycles and cars there are so e places
where they meet. Junctions is one example. A car turning off the road into
another road may cross a cycle path. In that example the car is probably
supposed to give way to pedestrians and cyclists on the cycle path / pavement.

------
lelf
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6703285](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6703285)
(166 comments)

~~~
davesque
Right, I thought I'd seen this before.

------
roel_v
I live in a country where cycling is a major mode of transportation
(Netherlands). I also work (albeit tangentially, this is not an appeal to
authority) in transportation planning.

In my view, expectations of cyclists in countries that don't traditionally
have bikes on their roads are unrealistic in their expectations. Nobody in
their right mind in the Netherlands would ride a bike on highways or major
multiple-lane roads (and in fact, it's mostly prohibited); yet I see cyclists
in New Zealand and Australia do that all the time (I suspect it's similar in
the US but I haven't observed it personally). Similarly, nobody in their right
mind drives a bike the same way they drive a car - on the same lanes, in the
middle of the lane, basically like a slow motor cycle (outside of areas where
cars move faster than walking speed, that is - i.e. not rush hour in urban
centers).

Now I understand that you'd sort of have to if there is no alternative, like a
well developed separate cycling network as we have. Heck, just having bicycle
lanes already seems to be hailed as a big progression in many places. But I
have a hard time understanding why cyclists are so determined to portray
themselves as this sub-group, a minority that deserves special attention, with
its own clothing ranges and gear sets and entitlements and internet forums for
circle jerking about how much better the world would be if only everybody else
was just like you. I'm trying hard not to blame the victim here, but the
problem the author identifies with cyclists turning public opinion against
them is real (which is still not a reason not to prosecute people who kill
cyclists, of course).

'Our' cyclists (sorry if this sounds condescending, I can't really think of a
better way of putting it) don't identify as 'cyclists'. They're just a cross
section of the population, and as such there is no such culture clash. Maybe
it's easy for me to say because we never had to make a transition the way many
countries will have to, but pitting yourself as the underdog who needs special
treatment from everybody else seems to be a long, hard slog, or maybe even
counter-productive in at least the short term. Not that I have an alternative
though, prisoner's dilemma and all.

~~~
_delirium
Yes, generally the solution is the two things you identify: 1) there is an
extensive bicycle network, separated as much as possible from the vehicular
lanes; and 2) cycling is something a broad cross-section of the population
does, on said network. In that case it would be both stupid and probably
illegal to bike in the car lanes, and there is also no real "cyclist"
identity. That is also how it is here (Copenhagen).

In almost all parts of the U.S., the law and infrastructure cuts the other
way, though. There is no separate bike infrastructure [1], and bicycles are
legally treated as vehicles. In that context, it doesn't seem that surprising
to me that the fewer people who still dare ride a bike demand to be treated as
the (poorly designed) legal framework envisions they should be.

[1] I'd love a good source to verify this comparison (I heard it in a talk),
but something I recently heard quoted is: Greater Copenhagen (1.5m people) has
more km of protected bicycle infrastructure (~1000km) than _the entire United
States added together_ does (~400km).

------
yournemesis
Interesting article. Horrible click bait title. I guess it worked though.

~~~
smallsharptools
Agreed. Click bait.

~~~
bvrlt
The problem with click-bait is that it's so omnipresent with websites like
BuzzFeed that if a journalist uses a non-factual title for an opinion piece,
people say it's click bait. IMHO it's really fine in that case.

~~~
yournemesis
This is different. The article didn't even answer the question.

~~~
hawkice
This. It does not deliver on the promise in the headline, and the headline
exists only to make you simultaneously infuriated, confused or curious. If
someone posted a comment with those properties they would be banned from HN.

------
AliAdams
Roads are dangerous by their nature and bicycles are unpredictable and
unprotected modes of transport to use. It is entirely understandable that
there will be a large amount of lethal accidents involving cyclists,
particularly on roads which aren't designed to accommodate them safely.

Choosing to cycle subsequently bears significant risk and those who choose to
do it surely carry a large proportion of the responsibility if they get
injured, not mention the risks they pose to drivers by causing traffic to
change speed and be forced to overtake.

I understand cycling where it is safe to but am not convinced cycling on major
roads is worth it.

~~~
Silhouette
Let's try that argument in another context:

Parks at night are dangerous by their nature and short skirts are
unpredictable and unprotected forms of clothing to wear. It is entirely
understandable that there will be a large amount of sexual assaults involving
attractive young women wearing short skirts, particularly in parks which
aren't designed to let them walk across safely.

Choosing to wear a short skirt subsequently bears significant risk and those
who choose to do it surely carry a large proportion of the responsibility if
they get raped, not to mention the risks they pose to rapists by causing them
to enter a dark park where they might get mugged themselves.

I understand wearing short skirts where it is safe to but am not convinced
wearing them when going out for the night is worth it.

Did anyone here _not_ think that argument was absurd? When did blaming the
victim become an ethically acceptable basis for setting public policy?

~~~
AliAdams
The reason that rape is not a comparable example is that the person committing
the crime is doing so actively.

Why do you think it is unreasonable of me to say that someone who puts
themselves in a risky position is by definition partly to blame?

~~~
AliAdams
Humans driving at the legal speed limit are dangerous by their nature. We
arent perfect and dont see everything - the likelihood of an accident is
simply a matter of probability.

I don't think it is any stretch of reasoning to say that choosing to be close
to and often in the path of people driving at legal speed in itself carries
risk, indiscriminate of how good and conscientious the driver is.

~~~
Silhouette
_Humans driving at the legal speed limit are dangerous by their nature. We
arent perfect and dont see everything - the likelihood of an accident is
simply a matter of probability._

If you can't drive safely at a given speed, slow down. It's really as simple
as that.

(Yes, of course there are exceptions. If you're driving an emergency response
vehicle then the likely damage caused by arriving later may be genuinely
greater than the likely damage caused by going faster. But obviously we're not
talking about that sort of situation here and for normal driving it really is
that simple.)

------
soneil
As terrible as this article is, I have to agree with the basic premise; there
are three times it's socially acceptable to kill someone in the US.

a) human privilege - If someone is actively and maliciously threatening the
life of me, or my immediate family. b) 'castle doctrine' \- If someone enters
my home with malicious intent. c) They're on a bicycle.

It does seem you can have a more reasonable debate over whether it's
acceptable to kill someone who is actively in the process of a non-lethal
crime, than it is to debate the murder of someone who added several seconds to
your daily commute.

------
guyzero
In NYC at least you can kill pretty much anyone in a car and you won't be
charged.

[http://nypost.com/2014/02/09/cabbies-who-kill-or-maim-in-
nyc...](http://nypost.com/2014/02/09/cabbies-who-kill-or-maim-in-nyc-keep-
licenses-return-to-work/)

"Of 16 fatal or serious crashes since 2009 examined by The Post, only two of
the drivers had their licenses revoked, according to a review based on a
Freedom of Information Act request."

Not even criminal charges here - these drivers are still driving daily,
professionally.

Basically cars are always right, legally, morally and inertially.

~~~
scardine
Same here in Brazil, even in DUI hit-an-run assassinations you hardly see the
perpetrator doing any jail time.

------
robbiet480
Moments after I read this, California Highway Patrol (Golden Gate Division)
issued an alert (which I received via SMS) asking the public to help find a
hit-and-run suspect that killed a cyclist in Winters, CA. The alert is at
[http://local.nixle.com/alert/5265373/](http://local.nixle.com/alert/5265373/)

------
j_baker
There's a case to be made against the "always follow the law" argument:
[http://www.vox.com/2014/5/9/5691098/why-cyclists-should-
be-a...](http://www.vox.com/2014/5/9/5691098/why-cyclists-should-be-able-to-
roll-through-stop-signs-and-ride)

TL;DR - These laws were made for cars, not bikes.

------
nraynaud
In France since a few years, the driver's fault is presumed if the accident is
with a cyclist or a pedestrian (for the civil case). It means that the burden
of the proof is on the driver.

Strangely enough, the usual civil system applies between a cyclist and a
pedestrian.

------
loverofcode
what about moped drivers? They are constantly getting killed around here. I
know a few people that only use them because of the gas savings. It use to
just be people that had DUI's. At any rate a human life is the most precious
thing there is IMHO, and we should be doing all we can to preserve them. I
enjoyed the article.

------
korzun
Start with mandatory insurance and bike registration. But I guess that's an
'unpopular' idea within cycling community.

~~~
gohrt
What problem does your solution solve?

~~~
benjohnson
Bicycle licenses could come with mandatory training and licenses could be
revoked for poor behavior. Licenses could be tied to mandatory insurance - to
limit the exposure for government assistance programs.

~~~
soneil
So the solution is to revoke cyclists licences for poor behaviour, but not do
the same to car drivers who commit vehicular manslaughter?

~~~
dragonwriter
Vehicular manslaughter -- which most fatal accidents are not -- is a criminal
offense which, when proven, results in a lot more than losing your license.

------
donatj
Biking on the streets with cars is like walking with bulls. Yeah, you can
probably do it and be fine, but it will never be safe.

~~~
mbillie1
That's like saying that "being skinny and being in a room with body builders
will never be safe" because the larger people are capable of physically
hurting you either deliberately or through negligence - in other words, that
is an unacceptable response to this issue.

~~~
donatj
Not just capable but largely blind on the sides and moving much much faster
than you, not to mention probably won't even feel that they're running into
you.

