
US Cities Are Becoming More Dangerous for Cyclists and Pedestrians - kirion25
https://theconversation.com/why-us-cities-are-becoming-more-dangerous-for-cyclists-and-pedestrians-111713
======
jbarberu
Having recently moved to Florida from Sweden, I was shocked at how
biker/pedestrian hostile it is here. I naively thought I'd be able to live a
more active lifestyle because of the nicer weather, but instead I'm driving a
car everywhere as I wouldn't feel safe on a bike.

It seems to be a pretty vicious cycle of the infrastructure being hostile to
biking so nobody does it, nobody is biking so the roads are optimized for
driving.

I've lived here for little over a year now and I've been _almost_ hit a couple
of times while crossing the road at the crosswalk, and a few times at parking
lots with drivers not looking back before reversing. I've also seen a dead
cyclist in the intersection just outside my apartment complex :(

~~~
magduf
>Having recently moved to Florida from Sweden, I was shocked at how
biker/pedestrian hostile it is here.

Sorry if this sounds rude, but this was a surprise to you? I thought everyone
in Europe realized how bicycle/pedestrial-hostile US cities are. Did you not
come here first to check things out before committing to a cross-Atlantic
move?

And seriously, Sweden is one of the top countries on the quality-of-life
indices. The US is definitely not. Why would you leave there to come here?
That's like me leaving the US and moving to El Salvador, thinking it'll
somehow be nicer. (This is a valid comparison: compare the murder rates of
Sweden vs. US to US vs. El Salvador.)

~~~
jbarberu
>Sorry if this sounds rude

It does, a little bit, but that's ok.

No, it wasn't a surprise that it wasn't as bike friendly as Sweden. My comment
was I was shocked at how extremely hostile Florida in particular was. I hadn't
been to Florida prior to moving here. I committed to move away from Sweden
because my wife couldn't stand it any more, the social aspects of Sweden are
not all that peachy. It's really hard to break through the social barriers and
make friends there. I had visited other parts of the US which I really did
like, but we ended up here for work. We'll spend a few years here and then
leave for some greener grass.

Having gone on some road trips my observation is it varies a lot by state.
Tennessee is one of my favorites down south and D.C metro area is quite nice
if you avoid the city center.

~~~
rmdashrfstar
Can you elaborate on what you mean about the social aspects of Sweden not
being peachy? Many people in the US describe Sweden as a utopia for Americans
looking for a new foreign country to call home... any input on that sentiment
would be appreciated.

~~~
tapland
You do not talk to others in public. You do not meet new people at the gym, at
bars, at anywhere. If you are lucky you work in a small startup-office where
employees go drink after work on fridays and where you can get to know them.

American tourists can be heard over all other sound in the metro- and
trainstations in Stockholm because the natural level of noise-making is so
different.

~~~
selestify
How do people meet other people to date then?

~~~
magduf
I don't actually know, but I'm going to hazard a guess that it's the same as
in the US: dating apps. How else could you possibly meet people to date? This
isn't a joke question, because I honestly have no idea.

The standard ways of meeting partners, according to surveys, have been:
school, work, church, friends, family, bars, online. School isn't possible if
you're not a student any more (i.e., most everyone over 25), work is generally
frowned upon and pretty limited unless your workplace has a lot of turnover
(which is bad for other reasons!), church isn't useful if you're not religious
(as is the case for Sweden I'm sure), friends and family have limited social
circles of singles, and bars are a great place to meet alcoholics. The surveys
I've read for dating in America have shown that all these methods (except
maybe school) have been declining for a long time, while online has become the
#1 method.

------
justinph
This article fails to mention one of the biggest factors, which is the
increased prevalence of SUVs and Trucks. These oversized vehicles have higher
grilles and increased mass. The higher grille means injuries that on a car
would have been a leg injury where the pedestrian ends up on the hood are
abdominal injuries where the pedestrian can be pushed under the vehicle. The
increased mass also means longer stopping distances.

Source: [https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2018/06/28/suvs-
killi...](https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2018/06/28/suvs-killing-
americas-pedestrians/646139002/)

~~~
btrettel
When I moved to Texas I did not anticipate this. As a cyclist, I will
definitely keep the types of vehicles in mind when choosing a place to live
from here on. Texans do worse, as "grille guards" are particularly common:
[http://www.frontier-gear.com/products/grille-guards/](http://www.frontier-
gear.com/products/grille-guards/)

When I first saw one of these I thought it was something out of Mad Max. The
vast majority of these people don't need these grille guards as they don't
work on a farm or anything similar. My guess is that they are bought to make
their truck or SUV look tougher.

In contrast, I grew up in a rural area where grille guards might be useful and
I never saw them. Big trucks don't seem to be as common as here either.

~~~
enraged_camel
Even Austin, the most liberal of Texas cities, is horrible.

A friend of mine, who is a bike-trail advocate, was intentionally hit by the
car behind him while he was stopped at a red light waiting to make a right
turn. He said he waited a bit too long, the car behind him honked impatiently
first, then bumped into him. He fell to the side and bruised his leg, while
the perpetrator non-nonchalantly drove by, made their right turn and drove
away.

~~~
btrettel
I live in Austin. Sorry to hear about your friend. Can't say that I'm
surprised.

Austin seems to be full of people who are happy to give cyclists lip service,
but once they have to wait more than 5 seconds for a cyclists, they could
hardly care less about them.

I was assaulted by a road raging driver, and to their credit the police made a
token effort. Even took my statement. But they made no effort to arrest the
guy as far as I can tell. Wasn't difficult for me to figure out where the guy
lived, so all I can figure is that the police never bothered looking at all.

This is the most significant reason why I don't intend to stay in Austin.

------
ab71e5
I moved from the Netherlands to Canada and still bike to a lot of places.
While I of course expected the lack of infrastructure, I did not fully expect
the amount of hate I would be getting.

People here see you as some idiot who is playing with his toy while `serious`
people are driving. They yell at you to get on the sidewalk, get off the road,
that you don`t pay `road tax` (wtf), some homophobic shit. Canadians are so
nice otherwise, but not on the road.

~~~
danieljohnson
Canada is pretty big, what area/city?

~~~
ab71e5
Toronto suburbs

~~~
iron0013
Ah, Ford Nation, say no more

------
cletus
Weird. This article doesn't mention what (IMHO) is one of the biggest factors
impacting pedestrian and cyclist safety: the ability in almost all of the US
to turn right at red lights.

I live in NYC where this is illegal in the five boroughs. Weirdly I've met
more than a few people who live here who didn't know this. You will come
across drivers who don't know this too occasionally who'll give you attitude
if you walk when you have right of way.

I've visited the Bay Area a lot and honestly I'm terrified of being a
pedestrian or cyclist there. When a car hits a red light and wants to turn
right the driver will naturally just look left for oncoming traffic. In doing
so they'll not be able to see pedestrian coming from the right who might need
to cross the road there and they seem more oblivious to cyclists coming from
the left.

Couple that with roads that are typically much wider and you feel like you're
taking your life in your hands every time you cross the road. In Palo Alto
there's a crosswalk across El Camino where it's 6 lanes (IIRC). Not in a
million years could you convince me to use it. You just don't know how drivers
are going to react. Will they see you? Will they stop for you? Who knows? It's
better to cross where there isn't one so you can predict car movement.

I don't know how the US ended up with this turning right at a red light rule.
I haven't personally been in another country where this is the case. But I
can't think of a more anti-pedestrian and anti-cyclist rule than this.

~~~
tom_
It's the opposite way round - I think it's the Coriolis effect - but you can
turn left on red in at least some parts of Australia.

~~~
jboles
It's not comparable. A right turn on red is allowed at traffic lights in the
US, unless signposted otherwise. A left turn on red is _dis_ allowed at
traffic lights in Australia, unless signposted otherwise.

I think the latter (default disallowed) is safer, because the sign permitting
turn on red states that the turn is only permitted after stopping. On the
other hand, drivers in the US blow through their right turns on red, usually
not stopping, and with impunity.

~~~
tom_
Thanks - that's a useful clarification. It was a while ago that I visited, and
while I do drive, and regularly, I didn't drive while there.

Obviously I failed to miss this "subtlety" ;) - good evidence, as if any were
needed, which of course it isn't, that drivers can't be trusted.

~~~
jboles
I nearly got hit just this morning by someone blowing through a right turn on
red. If they get that close to me that I am in range to, I _will_ hit or kick
their car ;)

------
joekrill
Interestingly (and obviously anecdotal) I've found the opposite has been
happening in Philadelphia. And the main driving (no pun intended) factor, I
think, was the introduction of our bike share program (Indego). Drivers were
so much more hostile to bicyclists before these were introduced.

We now have more dedicated bike lanes, which helps immensely. We've introduced
signs and indicators ("sharrows") that indicate to drivers that bicyclists
have the right to use the lanes just as much as drivers. It's a noticeable
difference from 10 years ago. I can't say for certain these other things would
have happened without the introduction of the bike share program, but it seems
to be what really changed things here.

~~~
techiferous
> Drivers were so much more hostile to bicyclists before these were
> introduced.

I'm not sure that driver attitudes are the primary cause of cycling deaths.
Lack of visibility might be one, though.

~~~
lkbm
In some places it might be. In most, it's probably distraction -- phones,
eating, etc. -- or alcohol, but if those are less common and hostility is
high, the latter could probably overtake.

People will pass very fasts and very close when they're angry at the cyclist
for being on the road and "in their way". I've actually had someone try to run
me off the road before. (I've had plenty of people try to merge into where I
was, but this was someone trying to do it because he wanted me on the sidewalk
"where I belonged". We stopped and argued at a light right afterwards.)

If that behavior were common, cycling would be vastly more dangerous. Maybe in
Philadelphia it was.

------
gdubs
I pretty much assume that unless I make eye contact with a driver and get some
kind of acknowledgement, I don’t trust that they see me. By far the closest
calls I’ve had are stop signs where someone in an SUV stops, doesn’t look
right or left (or worse, doesn’t look up from their phone), and then just
goes.

I also hate “share the road” situations where the right thing to do is take up
the whole lane; drivers are almost religiously against this concept. Even if
it’s, like, 30 yards. So you’re stuck either taking the dangerous option of
treating a rough, basically nonexistent shoulder as a “bike lane”, or dealing
with road rage as you occupy the full lane. I can keep up pretty well with
traffic, but even so people just get angry.

~~~
dfxm12
_I also hate “share the road” situations where the right thing to do is take
up the whole lane;_

When driving, I hate when cyclists don't take up the whole lane when they are
supposed to (and where I live, they are supposed to unless there's a bike
lane). It creates dangerous ambiguous situations when the lane belongs to a
biker, but the biker doesn't take it. Pulling over to the side says "go ahead,
and pass me" (whether it's a car or a bike). I can't tell you how many times
I've seen bikes just mindlessly swerve from the middle of the lane, to outside
the lane, and back, paying no attention to the flow of traffic.

I don't get angry at bikers. I get angry at anyone cutting me off or generally
using the road erratically.

~~~
allemagne
This is why putting up with the potential road rage is the right answer to
OP's dilemma.

As a cyclist you must be noticeable and predictable at all times.

Put flashing lights and reflectors anywhere you can. Make turn signals with
your hand. When you take up a lane, do it confidently and clearly communicate
your intent. Take it all seriously and "officially" and drivers will be forced
to pick up on it.

~~~
gdubs
Yea and just to be clear, that’s the choice I make.

However, there are situations where it’s not possible, because doing the
“correct thing” would be more dangerous. Hard to illustrate with words, but
there are some busy roads on my commute where the bike lane merges with the
full lane, and then becomes a bike lane again after a busy intersection. The
problem is, if you do the “correct” thing, rather than hugging the shoulder,
you become exposed to cars cutting across lanes, at high speeds, with you
essentially in their blind spot.

It’s a balance - you want to be predicable and do the correct thing as much as
possible, but sometimes it’s just not safe.

------
xefer
I noticed they mentioned the speed reduction "Boston, for example, has reduced
the city speed limit from 30 miles per hour to 25 mph." Cambridge across the
river followed suit soon afterward, but having lived there for decades I can't
say I've noticed one iota of difference in the speed cars travel. 25 mph is
still ridiculously fast in most of the tight neighborhood streets. Really the
speed limit should be reduced even further to 20 mph and even 15 in some areas
accompanied by much stricter enforcement. It's not uncommon to see cars
hitting 40+ going down some of the straighter roads that emanate out of the
major squares.

I am a daily all-weather bike commuter and to be honest have not had a problem
with cars. I don't really mind the concept of SOVs- we use one ourselves; it's
just that they need to be much more tightly controlled at least in these
neighborhoods.

~~~
zanny
I live in a town here the main street has a posted speed limit of 25 that
absolutely nobody obeys and the average speed of traffic is always around 40.

If you take a road with a "natural" speed and try to artificially restrict
with a speed limit, unless you are prepared to have officers posted on that
road at all times ticketing people will ignore the limit entirely and go the
"natural" speed of the road.

I see it all the time, all over, especially since I live in PA where the state
thinks its a really sensible idea to keep almost every highway at 55 mph no
matter what. When you try to heavily constrain car speed well below the
natural speed of the road people simply stop trying to obey the limit at all
and go whatever speed they want.

~~~
clairity
i wish this were more common knowledge. narrowing lanes is among the best ways
to slow cars down, if that's the goal.

but in many cases, that goal is missapplied to reduce accidents. accidents are
typically not caused by speed, but rather distraction or anger. it hard to
enforce attention and mindfulness, so we regulate speed as a (poor) proxy
(partially for harm reduction, as speed increases severity of accidents),
which directly leads people to wrongly associate speed as the cause of
accidents.

it makes sense, for example, to reduce vehicle speeds around schools to reduce
harm in case of accidents with small people. but rather than an artificial
speed limit that depends on police enforcement, narrow the lanes to 8 feet and
people will naturally drive 15-20 mph in those school zones without the added
enforcement burden (and use the remaining road space for bike lanes).

~~~
emj
Lower speed leads to fewer deaths; at ~18 mph almost no one dies, compared to
80% of pedestrians who are hit at 30 mph die. Your reasoning comes from
another angle it might be correct but you can never assume people are
attentive in traffic, neither pedestrians nor drivers, that's why you need
rules and infrastructure that makes it possible to share the roads.

------
afpx
I’ve noticed that many new road projects near me haven’t included pedestrian
crossings. Or, when included, the pedestrian crossings have been poorly-
designed.

A view of a map of recent pedestrian deaths [1] seems to confirm this. Many of
the deaths seem to be on major roadways that separate two densely populated
areas. And, I’ve personally witnessed many more people crossing highways,
lately (sometimes, even mothers with small children walking on the shoulder!)

Unfortunately, as the authors research shows, many deaths are in low-income
areas. I suspect that low-income people aren’t well-represented when these
roadways are designed. And, in particular, two new interchanges near me (that
also lack pedestrian crossings), were also known to be areas where many
(generally low-income) pedestrians cross, but none of those residents were at
any of the planning meetings.

[1] [http://www.governing.com/gov-data/transportation-
infrastruct...](http://www.governing.com/gov-data/transportation-
infrastructure/pedestrian-traffic-fatalities-accidents-2008-2012-map.html)

~~~
UncleEntity
They're doing the opposite here, putting up dedicated stop lights at
"troublesome" crosswalks because nobody, ever, stops for people in crosswalks.
Well, aside from the 15mph crosswalks they have around schools where everyone
stops because the police like to hide around those.

------
maxsilver
The safest infrastructure are ones that split pedestrian / bicyclist / motor
traffic as much as possible, for obvious reasons. But that infrastructure has
fallen out of favor as of late. "Complete streets" are the new fashion trend,
and are significantly more dangerous, by combining these forms of traffic
altogether and just sort of hoping it all works out.

But, "complete" streets are super cheap, and give the illusion of improved
infrastructure, so the trend will likely continue for the near future --
further increasing accidents as it does.

~~~
admiral_biatch
In my opinion isolating separate transportation modes is only good if it is
complete isolation but that's never feasible in a city. Too expensive and
space-inefficient to make every intersection collision-free for cars, bikes
and pedestrians.

If you separate cars, bikes and pedestrians most of the time but their paths
cross at intersections then you have a problem because drivers might not
expect a sudden bike lane out of nowhere. It's better to have the bike lane on
the street so that cars see it all the time. This makes them drive slower and
more carefully because they expect bikes to show up there.

I don't have data to back this up although I vaguely remember reading about it
in "Streetfight" by Janette Sadik-Khan. If I recall correctly introduction of
unseparated bike lanes in New York City didn't increase bike fatalities
despite increasing the number of bikers and it also decreased number of
pedestrian fatalities thanks to cars driving slower because of bikes. Of
course the article shows that now the pedestrian deaths increased so it might
have been a premature conclusion on Sadik-Khans part.

~~~
jnty
Of course drivers in cities do expect 'bikes coming out of nowhere' because,
unless you literally separate bikes with a 6ft wall, you can in fact still see
them despite there being kerb-separation in place. At car/bike junctions with
poor visibility the same interventions are available as for car junctions with
poor visibility.

If you've ever seen a mangled barrier by the side of a road, you'll understand
why encouraging humans into the road as a traffic calming strategy is rather
problematic.

Enlightened cities such as those in the Netherlands tend to take a risk-
elimination approach - residential streets will be designed to keep speeds
low, and neighbourhoods designed so that through-traffic doesn't try to take
shortcuts along them. This makes it safe for cyclists to use the roads without
special infrastructure. Only busier main roads have infrastructure. This is
hard to imagine in the US where many cities in the US seem unfamiliar with the
concept of any road _not_ being a busy main road!

~~~
admiral_biatch
Where I live (Poland) it's not uncommon for a bike lane to be effectively a
part of the sidewalk with trees and parked cars between the sidewalk and the
road so it's not that obvious if you're visible to drivers or not.

I agree that putting unprotected humans on the road should happen only after
other traffic calming measures have been put in place.

Regarding your last remark. There are basically two styles of bike
infrastructure. You described the dutch way quite well. But there is also a
Copenhagen style of bike infrastructure where it's directly by the road.
Sometimes separated by the curb but still on the road.
[https://goo.gl/maps/QWTfALXSbsj](https://goo.gl/maps/QWTfALXSbsj)

I won't judge which style is better. It probably depends on the city.

More about differences between Amsterdam and Copenhagen styles
[https://robertweetman.wordpress.com/2017/11/04/amsterdam-
vs-...](https://robertweetman.wordpress.com/2017/11/04/amsterdam-vs-
copenhagen-part-1/)

------
chasd00
heh a couple summer's ago in Dallas i got hit by a police officer while
crossing the street. Ironically, while he was on his cell phone. I had to do
the whole ninja-roll thing over the hood and on to the pavement. Came out of
it with only a sore wrist and a funny story for the conference call i was late
to.

a buddy of mine grabbed a guy and pulled him out of the way of a city bus. The
guy had the light to cross and the bus was making a turn while watching for
traffic and not people. My friend saved a life that day.

while crossing a fairly busy street, again in Dallas, a girl about 10 feet in
front of me got completely leveled by, yet again, a car turning right watching
for traffic and not people. She was not ok.

Dallas isn't that friendly to pedestrians

~~~
nkrisc
Honestly I think right turns on red should be illegal at more intersections
for this reason. At least busier ones. It's these cases where a right turner
has to carefully watch for oncoming traffic that pedestrians are exactly
opposite of where they're looking. God forbid you're trying to cross from the
same side of the street as the right turner.

~~~
electricslpnsld
NYC outlaws rights on red unless otherwise posted and it makes life as a
pedestrian so much better.

~~~
Wowfunhappy
It's a shame that NYC drivers never seem to follow this. I see even commercial
vehicles like trucks regularly turn on red.

Although, I suppose the situation would be even worse if it wasn't outlawed...

~~~
mdhen
This isn't true. I don't think I've ever seen anyone try a right on red in
Manhattan and while I'm sure it happens occasionally in the boroughs I really
don't ever see it. Not sure what you're talking about

~~~
Wowfunhappy
Honestly not sure what to say, I see it constantly in Manhattan, as a
pedestrian.

------
upofadown
I have personally noticed some unintended consequences due to modern auto
design. The more steeply sloped windshields for better aerodynamics mean that
in most cases a pedestrian can no longer see where the driver is looking. All
they see is a reflection of the bright sky. The greater tendency to have
smoked windows to the sides and rear just makes things worse.

The flatter angle of the front A-pillars also increases the size of the blind
spot[1]. A-pillars have to provide rollover protection these days and as a
result have to be somewhat wider to produce the required strength.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_blind_spot#Effects_of_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_blind_spot#Effects_of_A-
pillar_angle_on_visibility)

~~~
lostlogin
It’s much harder to know where the car you are driving ends too. With bonnets
that slope away at an increasing gradient you can’t tell. In older cars you
could see the front of the vehicle you were driving. I also find my view
obstructed by the wide A pillars, particularly on winding roads.

------
pdovy
There's a great, if a bit cheesy video from FortNine [1] on why motorcyclists
can be basically invisible to even cautious drivers due to the way our brain
processes information, and I think the same thing would apply for bicyclists.
When I'm on my bike (of either type) I assume nobody sees me and act
accordingly.

For cyclists and pedestrians to really be safe we need to design our road
infrastructure to counteract those issues from the start. I visited Copenhagen
a few years ago and biked everywhere, and it was a real eye opener how safe
and easy it was compared with my home in Chicago.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x94PGgYKHQ0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x94PGgYKHQ0)

------
kgwxd
I don't understand why anyone ever though walkways, bikeways and driveways
should intersect without strict rights-of-way, or run parallel without actual
barriers between them. In low traffic areas, fine, practicality wins, but the
8-lane roads from a decade ago have turned into 8-lanes with motorcycle lanes
between them (sometimes only imaginary, but still legally real), bike lanes
(sometimes not as the outer-most lane), and mid-street pedestrian crosswalks
that have very confusing, seemingly optional, signaling. People sucked at
driving under far simpler conditions. They still suck just as bad and new
obstacles and distractions keep being introduced. Strict separation is the
only sane option.

~~~
benrbray
What I find absolutely INSANE about American traffic signals is that they're
built on the assumption that drivers will turn-on-red while the pedestrian
walk signal is active.

This causes so many unnecessary conflicts. At best, you get a nasty look from
an impatient right-turner who has to slam their brakes to avoid hitting you.
At worst, you get killed for obeying a traffic signal.

Similar with left turning. Why don't all high-volume roads have dedicated left
turn arrows? If a driver misjudges the speed of the next car, you can bet
they'll choose to follow through with the turn and hit a pedestrian rather
than getting hit by a car going through a green light.

------
antisthenes
The best tell of the US bike infrastructure being a joke is that local
governments have the audacity to put some paint on a 45MPH road, and call it a
bike lane. No separation, no barrier, just cars whizzing by at 45+, next to a
cyclist going 15. And the bike lanes sometimes suddenly disappear, making
bikers dismount or merge into fast traffic. No, thanks. I'll take the sidewalk
that's empty 90% of the time.

Even in rare places where signs say "bikes may use full lane", I've been near
ran over by cars angrily speeding past me.

------
SEJeff
Chicago is a super bike friendly city:

[https://www.bicycling.com/culture/a23676188/best-bike-
cities...](https://www.bicycling.com/culture/a23676188/best-bike-cities-2018/)

Source: I live in Chicago and ride a bicycle when it is nice out.

~~~
monksy
However, most of the bikers are terrible and enforcement of safety and traffic
laws on them is non-existent.

------
dsfyu404ed
No (edit: quantitative, you'd think that stipulation would be obvious because
we're on HN) mention of increase in popularity of cycling for one's commute
(seems to be up year over year in my unscientific observation)? I even skimmed
the linked articles and they also seem to only be counting deaths, not deaths
per anything. That doesn't tell us anything useful. This entire article is
hand-wavy.

I'm sure if everyone who currently rides a bicycle to work went out and
started commuting via skateboard tomorrow we'd have a heck of a lot more
skateboard fatalities.

Also worth mentioning that this is an op-ed so it is not subject to normal
journalistic standards (however low they may sometimes be).

~~~
benwad
3rd paragraph:

> More people are being killed because cities are encouraging residents to
> walk and bike, but their roads are still dominated by fast-moving vehicular
> traffic. As my research has shown, this shifting mix can be deadly.

------
dr_dshiv
The Netherlands dealt with this decades ago with a "stop murdering our
children" movement. It worked. It should be replicated.

[https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/02/20/the-origins-of-
hollan...](https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/02/20/the-origins-of-hollands-
stop-murdering-children-street-safety-movement/)

------
simplyluke
The article only gives a passing mention to distracted driving but I really
think it's what's driving the dramatic increases over the past decade much
more so than vehicle design or social attitudes. Around 6 months ago I started
driving a truck, offering a much higher vantage, sitting in traffic I'd say >
60% of people are actively on their phones at any given time. It's an epidemic
and I'm not sure what the fix is - maybe treating it more like DUIs?

The city of Austin just had a bus driver kill a cyclist a few weeks ago who
was later found to have been texting and driving _a city bus_.

We know that drivers on phones rely primarily on their peripheral vision to
spot other vehicles, but it's very easy for a pedestrian or cyclist to slip
through that.

------
bloomca
Well, in the US cars _always_ have the right of way (technically, it is
illegal, but who cares, drivers think they are entitled to it).

So, nobody stops for you at pedestrian crossings, unless you already are
walking on it (and you can even feel their frustration), everybody pulls ahead
on the pedestrian crossings at intersections, thus making it dangerous for
people, who have to slide around. And the turn on right, yes, mentioned here
before – same thing, people pull forward too much, plus don't wait for people
to cross fully (again, illegal).

Looking at all of it, I am curious why can't they put police behind crosswalks
and just fine everybody with such behaviour? Drivers will learn their lessons
really quickly (everybody understands fines and money), and this should
improve situation drastically.

~~~
closetohome
> Well, in the US

Parts of the US. Where I live if you pause near the edge of a sidewalk for too
long cars will just start screeching to a stop and waving for you to cross. To
the point that it's a problem.

------
killjoywashere
I was the co-captain of my college cycling team. I still find certain open
roads in Southern California reasonable, but I find myself more and more
concerned about the other traffic on the road. I am a physician in no small
part because I got hit by a car while riding my bike, and my surgeon was
exceptionally gracious, letting me scrub in on surgeries during my
convalescence.*

\------

* Unrelated footnote: This was before HIPAA. I very much wonder if my kids would be afforded the same opportunity today.

------
jdlyga
Manhattan definitely has this problem. It's a pedestrian city where most
people walk and take the subway everywhere. Meanwhile, there's a ton of cars
everywhere, mostly Ubers and people driving through to get to New Jersey, that
act like the whole island is their personal highway. It's super dangerous,
like putting a gun range in the middle of a playground.

------
tonymet
Walking terrifies me. I'm not exaggerating. I do hours of high risk activities
every week, and nothing terrifies me more than walking.

------
elhudy
I don't care what the law says or what anybody thinks; if there is an empty
sidewalk I'm going to bike on it rather than put myself at risk on the road.

------
FloNeu
More dangerous... god, better not set a foot into this country again :)

------
mrhappyunhappy
I worked at a personal injury law firm in LA and the number of calls we got
daily regarding bicycle collisions was disturbing. I knew I would never ride a
bike or a motorcycle in LA. It wasn’t a matter of if you got hit but when.

------
baud147258
Why the article doesn't mention of distracted and inattentive pedestrians? It
might be possible that the sudden increase in deaths is due to the rise of
handheld distractions.

Also the same could be true of drivers and cyclist using their handheld.

~~~
upofadown
It doesn't mention distracted and inattentive pedestrians because that is not
an important factor. From the article:

>Most pedestrians and bicyclists are killed or injured while they are obeying
the law.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
It sure is important when death is on the line. It's no consolation telling St
Peter "But I was within the law!"

It's risky out there. Everybody, please keep your heads up!

~~~
jgys
Also don't dress too provocatively, or you'll be asking for it.

... Oh, wait, we're victim blaming about something else this time?

~~~
magduf
It doesn't matter if you're right when you're dead.

~~~
upofadown
But it does matter who is right when determining who is wrong...

~~~
magduf
That only helps in punishing the wrongdoer. If you can avoid being a victim in
the first place, yes, the wrongdoer will get away with doing something wrong
(though much less wrong than if you succeeded in becoming a victim; e.g., he's
guilty of running a red light rather than running a red light and causing a
crash that resulted in someone's death), but the price you pay for making the
wrongdoer guilty of a greater crime (homicide) is your life. Is that really
worth it?

The whole right vs. wrong thing is only useful in assigning blame when
something really bad happens, and society wants to punish someone to achieve
"justice". But having justice isn't really useful if you're dead, and not
really worth it IMO if you're maimed for life. It's better to avoid the whole
incident in the first place. "Justice" is nothing more than a concept society
created to prevent people from seeking personal vengeance.

~~~
upofadown
In the end though, Homer Simpson is still a bad safety supervisor. Just
telling people to "Safen up!" is pointless and in this case is a way of
distracting from an important truth ... that the problem here is cars and
their drivers, not the pedestrians and cyclists. The legend of the reckless
everyone else but drivers is less accepted these days and people tend to get
called on it.

~~~
magduf
I'm not disagreeing that cars and their drivers are the real problem, but this
whole thread is about someone saying that pedestrians and cyclists need to
watch out for cars, even if they're in the right, and someone else calling
this "victim blaming". Call it what you want, but it doesn't matter if you
were completely within the law when a car hits and kills you: you're still
dead!!! Getting on some high horse about the car driver being "wrong" isn't
going to bring the pedestrian back to life.

And sure, maybe (maybe) the legal system will penalize the driver, but is it
going to change anything? No, because our society has decided that cars are
more important and we're not going to curtail our usage of cars at all, and
accidents like this are unavoidable because of the nature of cars and ever-
increasing traffic. If we built more trains/subways to take the load off the
roads, we really could reduce the cyclist/pedestrian fatalities, but the US
isn't going to do that; it's proven that it's completely incapable of building
new public-transit infrastructure.

~~~
jgys
> And sure, maybe (maybe) the legal system will penalize the driver, but is it
> going to change anything? No, because our society has decided that cars are
> more important and we're not going to curtail our usage of cars at all, and
> accidents like this are unavoidable because of the nature of cars and ever-
> increasing traffic.

Yes, this is the problem that is being discussed -- and the problem that we
really need to solve, for a host of reasons ranging from public health to
climate stability -- and it is a distraction from discussions of this problem
(and also, condescending and unnecessary advice) to suggest that the victims
of reckless motorists try harder to not be victims.

------
everdev
In the Bay Area it's popular for cyclists to bike on narrow, winding, steep
roads with no shoulder like Sand Hill Rd. or Highway 9 in the Santa Cruz
Mountains.

Regardless of how you feel about bikes the conditions are inherently unsafe
for bikes and cars and there are multiple annual fatalities.

I can't think of another form of exercise where a participant puts themselves
and non-participants in legal danger.

~~~
ainiriand
While I totally understand your point, I think that the cyclists are not the
ones putting themselves in danger. They have every right to use the road
safely. The danger is caused by the divers.

There are many reasons for this but the most common is not taking sufficient
separation from the cyclist when passing them. Here in Spain is 1.5m but you
don't usually see many cars so close.

~~~
everdev
Biking on a windy road with no shoulder is like swimming in a harbor. If you
turn a blind corner and there's an oncoming car and a bike in your lane you
need exceptional reflexes to avoid and accident.

Most roads were designed for cars not bikes. I'm all for bike Lanes, but there
should be a minimum speed limit on roads too. It's similarly not safe to be
going 5mph on a 35mph road.

~~~
nradov
When going around a blind corner you have to reduce speed enough to be able to
stop quickly or avoid any obstacles. This is just basic defensive driving.
It's not about bikes; deer, fallen tree branches, and stalled cars are common
on those roads.

~~~
brewdad
Exactly. There's a reason that curve is marked 25mph (or 15mph even). It's not
that a modern vehicle can't negotiate the curve safely above that speed, it's
that you can't see far enough ahead to safely stop for anything that might be
on the road ahead. Pedestrian, cyclist, or 10 ton boulder.

------
towaway1138
I recently moved to a city with "excellent" bicycle infrastructure. Contrary
to what I might have imagined, this seems to make things more dangerous for
all. The extra lanes, markings, lights, and signs increase distraction, making
it harder to concentrate on what actually matters--people.

In addition, almost no bicyclists actually drive lawfully here. It's typical
to see them going the wrong way down streets, blowing stop signs, red lights,
and crosswalks. And often when a rather nice bike lane is at hand, they'll
choose to ride down the sidewalk instead, endangering pedestrians.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but as a pedestrian, I fear bicyclists more
than cars.

~~~
maxxxxx
"It's typical to see them going the wrong way down streets, blowing stop
signs, red lights, and crosswalks."

That bothers me too. I ride a bike myself but a lot of bikers ride like
complete idiots. My favorite is riding at night without lights and reflective
equipment.

~~~
amanaplanacanal
I see this too, but I will say that by far the great majority are doing it
right. The ones doing it wrong are definitely more memorable, though.

~~~
towaway1138
It's so rare here that I actually call it out to my wife when I see a properly
lit bicyclist at night.

