
Don’t make bicyclists more visible. Make drivers stop hitting them - zhanwei
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/15/dont-make-bicyclists-more-visible-make-cars-stop-running-them-over/
======
makeitsuckless
I've repeated this dozens of times whenever Americans come up with lame
excuses for why cycling is dangerous in the US: in the Netherlands cyclists
still share the road with cars a lot of the time. The rules however are very
simple: as a driver, you're not allowed to hit weaker traffic like cyclists
and pedestrians. Period. If it happens, the burden of proof that you could do
nothing about it is on you.

Is this insane and unfair? No, it's about the responsibility that comes with
driving a big, dangerous hunk of metal amongst unprotected civilians. For a
country where most people believe that they can be considered responsible
enough to own firearms, that responsibility for something that is potentially
equally deadly shouldn't be that big a burden.

The notion that you can legally run down and kill a child on a bicycle just
because that child was "wrong" is what's insane.

~~~
jinushaun
I'm a cyclist in the U.S., but have no problem admitting that probably 90% of
the time, the cyclist is at fault. I've ridden bikes in Europe with real bike
lanes—U.S. urban cycling culture is not Dutch cycling culture. There is not a
culture of responsible cycling. We don't have real bike lanes. We don't stop
for red lights. We don't stop for pedestrians. As a result, the U.S. also does
not have many drivers or pedestrians that are sympathetic to cyclists. In
general, I am ashamed of my fellow cyclists in the U.S..

~~~
birken
I'm a cyclist and I completely disagree with this. I've biked thousands and
thousands of miles in SF, and I think probably 80 or 90% of cyclists are
responsible and law abiding. There are maybe 10 or 20 percent who are bad, run
red lights and do other crazy shit. They are not the majority.

And if you want further proof, just read the list of bicycle fatalities in SF
[1] and see who is at fault. Most of the time it is the vehicle. And guess
what happens when a vehicle is ruled at fault and kills a cyclist? Nothing
[2]:

> Unfortunately, the lack of charges in this tragic case is par for the course
> in our justice system which continually fails to prosecute traffic cases as
> the crimes that they are. Four people were killed while biking in San
> Francisco last year, and no charges were filed against the drivers in any of
> these cases.

The myth that all cyclists are irresponsible and reckless is untrue and needs
to die. Most cyclists are drivers and thus can emphasize with drivers and
understand and predict what they are doing. However, most drivers are not
cyclists, and often think a cyclist is doing something wrong when they are
not. Or maybe they only notice when cyclists are doing something bad and their
selective memory is reinforced. The point is, most drivers are good and most
cyclists are good. A little more empathy on both sides would go a long way
towards improving the situation, and untrue claims like "90% of the time the
cyclist is at fault" is not helping.

1: [https://medium.com/improving-our-cities/a-list-of-people-
kil...](https://medium.com/improving-our-cities/a-list-of-people-killed-while-
riding-a-bicycle-in-san-francisco-1456bbd017d9)

2: [https://www.sfbike.org/news/statement-on-lack-of-charges-
in-...](https://www.sfbike.org/news/statement-on-lack-of-charges-in-traffic-
fatalities/)

~~~
pandaman
Maybe cyclists in SF are so special, but in LA I have yet to see a cyclist
stopping at a stop sign. I walk to/from work about 2 miles each way and see
about a dozen cyclists every day. Sure, cars some times do not stop at the
sign either but I don't see this happening nearly as often as I see cyclists
just happily cycling through stop without even an attempt to slow down. And I
see much more cars than bikes.

~~~
maaaats
Of course you have seen a bicycle stop for a stop sign. No need to lie, it
throws away all points you're trying to make. Besides, this is the typical
confirmation-biased anecdotes that pollutes these discussions.

Have you thought of why this is so common? A bicycle uses human power,
stopping is a much bigger hassle than sitting lazily in a car. And a bicycle
approaches a stop sign much slower than a car, this having a better overview
before crossing.

~~~
pandaman
If I have seen - I don't remember doing so. As for why are they do not stop -
I don't really care. The message I replied to said 90% bicyclists don't drive
illegally, which contradicts my experience.

------
cperciva
At first I thought this was going to be a parody of "anti-rape-culture"
campaigns (e.g., "teaching women to defend themselves from rapists is wrong,
because we should be teaching men to not rape women"), but much to my surprise
it seems that the author is serious.

And so I really have to wonder about his grip on logic: The whole purpose of
making cyclists more visible is to prevent drivers from hitting them! Driving
around Vancouver -- a city with a large (by North American standards) cycling
population, I have on many occasions come across cyclists who were visible
only thanks to the lights on their bicycles. Fortunately those lights were all
I needed; but on one occasion I passed a cyclist whose rear light had burnt
out, and thanks to his black clothing, the lack of street lights, and the
overcast night, I had no idea he was in the road until I passed him -- _even
though I had been looking directly at him_ prior to passing.

How, pray tell, am I supposed to avoid hitting invisible cyclists?

~~~
Digit-Al
As both a cyclist and a driver, I agree with you to a point. However, the wife
of an ex-colleague of mine cycles to work every day. She was knocked off her
bike by a car one dark morning (luckily not hurt, just a bit shaken up). She
had lights front and back on the bike, was wearing a high visibility jacket,
had a head mounted light, and little lights on her body. Basically, she was
lit up like a Christmas tree. The drivers response after hitting her - "sorry,
I didn't see you".

~~~
cperciva
Sure, and there's a point where "I didn't see you" means "I was negligent and
not paying attention" rather than "You weren't visible". I'm not saying that
motorists have no responsibility to look for bicycles; rather, that there is a
shared responsibility: Motorists should look for bicycles, and cyclists should
ensure that, if looked for, they will be seen.

~~~
ptaipale
Quite right. There are some cases where the cyclist is actually not visible
enough (no lights, no reflectors). But more common is 1) the driver didn't
look, 2) the driver didn't look carefully enough, 3) the driver couldn't see
even if he/she was careful.

For case 3) and HGV, a video:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzL0Kyk4m-8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzL0Kyk4m-8)

------
rkischuk
Almost every time I encounter cyclists in traffic, they context switch between
vehicle and pedestrian at their convenience.

If you want to be treated as a vehicle, be a vehicle. Don't block a lane
between intersections and then ride the divider lines to advance ahead of cars
at every intersection so they can wait and merge around you once the light
turns.

As a former bike commuter, I really don't understand why bikes are required to
ride the roads and behave like cars. They seem far more compatible to ride
sidewalks and co-travel with pedestrians.

~~~
micheljansen
The thing is, they are neither, really.

Bicycles are not comparable to motor vehicles, as they are much slower (50
km/h vs ~15-20 km/h).

Bicycles are also not comparable to pedestrians, as they are much faster (5
km/h vs ~15-20 km/h).

I think it's a mistake to mix traffic that differs in speed by a factor of 3.

As someone who moved from the Netherlands to London, it has taken me years to
adjust to absence of real bicycle lanes. They really do seem like the best
answer to me.

~~~
crocowhile
I agree with you in principle but let me make a cheeky comment: Average speed
of a motor vehicle in London is 8.98 mph (
[http://www.itv.com/news/london/update/2012-11-19/tfl-
average...](http://www.itv.com/news/london/update/2012-11-19/tfl-average-
traffic-speeds-are-less-than-20-mph-in-london/) ) so way lower than average
bike commuter speed (~12-15mph)

~~~
micheljansen
Haha, I'm sure that's true (in fact, it's one of the reasons many prefer
cycling), but I'd argue that the average speed matters a lot less than the top
speed. Stop and go traffic, where one minute cycles whizz past cars and the
next it's the other way around, is probably the worst of both worlds.

------
kika
The article calls for crackdown on drivers and may be rightfully so, but. I
came to the US from the country where road laws are based on the concept of
"operator of the dangerous machine". Such an operator is at fault by default
and have to prove their innocence. End even if they do, they still have to
compensate medical expenses. Such compensations are not as ridiculously high
as they are in the US but still may be quite expensive for the person who
_wasn't guilty_ at the first place. And if they were guilty the future of the
unfortunate car driver is much more grim. Courts routinely convict such
drivers for 1-2 years behind bars (there even special "prisons" for such
"criminals" which do not even look like prisons, more like military camps
behind barbed wire). If the driver was drunk that could easily become 4-5
years or more.

And you know what? Wikipedia says there're 13 deaths per 100k vehicles in the
US and 55 in the country I came from (Russia).

Go figure.

What I'm trying to convey is that the article says "don't do ____, stop other
party from doing the wrong thing ". Okay. Stop investing money into Falcon
landing, just make fricking rocket booster land straight onto the platform at
sea. Stop making cars safe, just make them not to crash into each other. Etc.
Sure! Where do I sign up? The author fails to deliver the answer "how".
"Invest in the infrastructure" is not enough.

~~~
maaaats
Why do you write this as if driving drunk is okay?

~~~
kika
Hm, why do you have such impression? Killing someone while driving drunk is
quite a felony in my book. But breaking someone's arm just because you were
not able to figure out where the lane markings are is not okay too, but
doesn't sound like a felony punishable by the jail time.

Also, the standards of sobriety are very different in different countries. In
Russia you're technically drunk if you had a bottle of yogurt for breakfast.
And they _will_ use that against you in court, it's not just a "fun fact".

------
Sharlin
It's fascinating how the mostly-subconscious bias shows in news articles about
driver-cyclist and driver-pedestrian collisions. The driver (and their
responsibility) is abstracted away by just referring to a "car", and even when
it is clear that the driver broke the law it is rarely mentioned. Phrases like
"a driver hit a cyclist" are almost never used; at most it's something like "A
cyclist collided with a car" and often even worse - using formulations that
imply that cars are some sort of an agency-less force of nature like lightning
- getting hit is either an unfortunate accident or recklessness on the
victim's part. Almost always the cyclist is victim-blamed for not using a
helmet.

------
mdemare
Some facts about cycling in the Netherlands:

\- After dark, head- and taillights are mandatory for cyclists, and you will
be fined if you don't have them.

\- Cycling on the sidewalk is prohibited. This too is enforced.

\- Cyclists in the Netherlands are not generally very respectful of traffic
laws - they will run red lights when they can.

\- Practically nobody wears helmets.

\- 184 cyclist deaths in 2013 (out of +- 10 million active cyclists)

~~~
bsder
> \- 184 cyclist deaths in 2013 (out of +- 10 million active cyclists)

Um, isn't that actually quite a _LOT_. Do we really want to emulate that?

The annual cyclist death toll in San Francisco looks to be under 10 people a
year. Right about the same level as the _fatal car crash death toll_ per year.

Complaining about something that really looks purely accidental from a
statistical viewpoint is not going to make people very sympathetic.

~~~
ffumarola
The population of SF is ~840k.

The SFMTA estimates that 16% of San Francisco residents are "frequent
cyclists", defined as cycling two or more days per week.

That means ~135k frequent cyclists.

184:10,000,000 = .0184 per 1,000 10:135,000 = .0741 per 1,000

SF = 4x higher

For SF to be safer than the Netherlands, bike deaths need to pretty much
disappear.

~~~
bsder
So, basically, cyclist deaths are effectively at the minimum you can
reasonably expect in both areas.

Okay. Kind of makes the ranting of the whole article pointless, though.

------
jasonkester
This is one of the nice things about moving to France.

You can ride your bike on a narrow road without a shoulder where cars
routinely pass you going 70mph, and never really worry about being taken out.
Bikes are things that are found on roads here, so cars just go around them.
Usually all the way over in the far lane.

I've never had a car come closer than 2m when passing me on the road. No
surprise, since they have signs posted every few miles reminding drivers that
that's the minimum legal amount of space that you need to give a bicycle.

~~~
aidenn0
Wow, 2m? We just got a law passed here to make it 90cm (there was no specified
distance before).

~~~
Kliment
It's 150cm in Germany but enforcement and compliance varies a lot by region.

------
peterwwillis
_" It’s just that cars are like white people and Wall Street — they don’t need
any more defending from anybody."_

This kind of lame trolling really should stay on blogs and off of national
newspapers.

 _" it won’t be long before you need a license and registration to operate a
bicycle, and you’ll be wearing a giant Dayglo bodysuit with illumination
circuitry, one of those Australian “smart hats,” and a GPS beacon up your
posterior so you don’t get hit by an Apple iCar."_

The people who oppose bicycle lanes [or even bicycles in general] won't even
get pissed off by this stupendously unlikely suggestion. It's only designed to
get angry bicyclists to vehemently agree with the general position based on
emotional resonance and not any sort of logic. It's fodder for more angry bike
people to read his bike blog.

------
andygambles
I cycle to work nearly everyday in the UK. Locally we have crazy cycle lanes
that at junction take you off the road and then have to yield to crossing
traffic at junctions whereas if I stayed on the road I have right of way.

I always stop at red lights. I ride the road so follow the rules of the road.

However as a cyclist I also have to take command of a lane to prevent vehicles
trying to squeeze by between a central reservation. Only for me to catch them
up and overtake then at the next set of lights.

Urban speed limit is 30mph and usually less when traffic is heavy. I can cycle
to and from work faster than I can drive. So I get annoyed when I see the same
car make a bad overtake 3 times while I am riding. If they travelled with me
they would arrive no later.

I stick my arm out to turn right (we drive in the left) and vehicles will
continue to overtake me even as I pull out to the centre of the road.

I wear a helmet and a hi-vis jacket. I also have insurance. Even so I have
around 2 near misses a week and so far this year been clipped twice from
behind.

On the flip side I see stupid cyclists darting across lights, bunny hoping on
and off pavements and weaving in lanes. So I can see why motorists get angry
when sat in there cars. I have also had a couple of disagreements with other
cyclists who are setting a bad example. They generally have a "give a shit"
response.

~~~
regularfry
As regards nearly being clipped despite wearing a helmet and hi-vis jacket, I
_don 't_ wear a helmet precisely to avoid being hit.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation#Bicycle_helme...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation#Bicycle_helmets)
is why.

------
PebblesHD
Whilst I agree with the concept that motorists are responsible for their own
behaviour on the road and should not endanger other travellers, I believe that
on a road where the speed limit is 55mph, or realistically any speed, that
vehicles using that roadway should be able to maintain a safe and non-
obstructive speed on said roadways. If your vehicle cannot maintain such a
speed, it shouldnt be on a road with other vehicles.

Having said that, Cyclists in sydney are a menace, running red lights into
traffic and pedestrians, crossing through pedestrian crossings and running
into people, generally ignoring the rules of the road. If they want equal
access, they need to conform to the same rules.

~~~
pascalo
Got any hard numbers on the menace part, and how it compares to cars as
dangerous machines, or is that just anecdotal "evidence"?

From what I have seen Sydney has a really obnoxious anti-cycling culture and a
dismal level of cycling infrastructure.

~~~
PebblesHD
I live and work in Sydney and suffer near misses with cyclists on a regular
basis, somehow I've never had a problem with a car running through a red light
into a packed pedestrian crossing, only cyclists. I'm not saying it doesn't
happen, just that cyclists seem to think road laws don't apply to them.

~~~
pascalo
The transgression of cycling through a red light is much more visible than
lets say speeding, mobile phone or dangerous driving. Yet it is also much less
dangerous than any of those things. Even if we assume that there is a massive
level of red light jumping going on part of the Sydney cyclists, fatalities or
serious injury as a result of this are extremely rare. Sadly the same cannot
be said for cars hitting people.

------
bontoJR
I guess the right stays in the middle. We have to make drivers more
responsible with cyclists, but on the other hand cyclists have to play
following rules. I don't think is always drivers' fault or vice-versa, we
should evaluate case by case, but admit that sometimes, some cyclists, are
even more dangerous than cars for pedestrians, is not crazy. I saw bike-
couriers in London, NY and even here in ZH completely ignoring signals,
jumping on sidewalks, avoiding kids with emergency maneuvers. I am not pro-
drivers or pro-cyclists, but we have to find the right balance to share
streets.

------
oldmanjay
Also kids shouldn't have to look before crossing the street. Just make drivers
not hit kids. Any other position is victim-blaming.

~~~
rtpg
Pretty sure the burden is on the car to ensure safety, since they are the one
operating heavy machinery in public, instead of just walking.

It actually does make sense to blame the driver for their behavior.

~~~
serge2k
If you step out into high speed traffic without warning you should be held
100% responsible for what happens.

------
regularfry
I've seen a few comments here using the example of "I see cycle couriers doing
X, therefore cyclists are at fault". It's worth being cautious trying to learn
much from the example of cycle couriers: they're disproportionately visible
members of the cycling population, they spend all their working days on bikes
so they're disproportionately good at it and _very_ confident in their skills,
added to which they are stereotypically young, male, and have a strong
financial incentive to bend the rules to get wherever they're going quickly.

~~~
regularfry
I'd be intrigued to know why the downvote.

------
vishaldpatel
As a cyclist, I am more than happy to see tech that makes me more visible! Why
are people up in arms!!? So stupid.

~~~
ygra
He's not in arms against the tech, but rather against the laws that make them
mandatory. Because it encourages motor vehicle drivers even more to not
properly pay attention because they're not the ones at fault when hitting a
cyclist.

~~~
vishaldpatel
Helmet laws may be dumb, but visibility laws could actually make cycling much
safer!

~~~
diyorgasms
Or, and here's a shocking concept, motorists could actually pay attention to
their surroundings. Cyclists are not difficult to spot if you are paying
proper attention while operating your vehicle.

~~~
vishaldpatel
Sure, that would be nice. But I'm gonna make damn sure that people see me.
Being the smallest one on the road is bad enough, now you want me to trust
that they'll all do the right thing all the time?

In fact, I think cycling at night is safer because my flashing lights and
reflectors are in their eye. During the day, I just blend into the background.
This is also why I keep my car's lights on when driving in the day.

------
baddox
I almost completely agree with the author's policy recommendations and
criticisms of US car culture, but I find many of his arguments and
implications to be fairly troubling.

> We’re already at the point where every car-on-bike “accident” (police always
> assume it’s an accident; drivers are allowed unlimited “oopsies”)

Is he implying that some significant portion of alleged car-on-bike accidents
are actually purposeful assault from the automobile driver? I find that very
difficult to believe.

> That’s why whenever you read about a cyclist who’s been injured or killed,
> the article mentions helmets, regardless of whether this detail in any way
> relevant. (“The cyclist’s legs were flattened by the runaway steamroller. No
> criminality suspected. The victim was not wearing a helmet.”)

I question whether media reports of a victim not wearing a helmet when a
helmet clearly would not have helped are actually that common, or if this is
just the author's bias (i.e. he notices and remembers these reports more than
others).

> Here’s why the auto industry, the insurance industry and the officials they
> lobby want helmet laws. First, forcing people to wear helmets shifts
> responsibilities onto cyclists and absolves governments from having to build
> better cycling infrastructure and drivers from having to obey traffic laws.

I have little doubt that the auto industry wants helmet laws, but I highly
doubt that shifting responsibilities onto the cyclist has anything to do with
it. The second reason the author provides ("helmet laws discourage people from
using bicycles for everyday transportation by making it inconvenient") feels
like a sufficient reason to me.

> Meanwhile, in countries like the Netherlands and Denmark, where lots and
> lots of people ride bikes, a helmeted bicyclist is about as rare as a
> helmeted driver here in America. And yet they seem to be managing pretty
> well — maybe because they’ve got bike infrastructure, and because they still
> subscribe to the notion that the person operating the giant machine on
> public roads needs to be responsible for not killing people with it.

As I mentioned in another comment, all these phenomena might be caused by the
fact that the Netherlands simply has (and has had for some time) a higher
ratio of bicycles to automobiles than the United States. Of course, this ratio
is likely affected by the US auto industry, as well as other things like
income and population density.

> What? How oblivious are you? Nobody should have to “scream out” to you to
> get your attention while you’re driving a car. You should already be giving
> it, and undividedly so.

By that same logic, we shouldn't have horns, brake lights, reflective lines
and road markers, or anything else that might help focus a driver's attention
and thus increase the odds that the driver behaves in the manner he or she
already should already behave.

~~~
stephendedalus
> Is he implying that some significant portion of alleged car-on-bike
> accidents are actually purposeful assault from the automobile driver? I find
> that very difficult to believe.

No, he's not. He's implying that instead of motorists being charged with
reckless driving or other similar charges, they're most often not even
charged. I once had a car make a left turn across 4 lanes of traffic and a
turn lane and t-bone me while I was cycling. He couldn't be bothered to make
his way safely to the turn lane, pause, then turn left. He just swung across
the entire road and hit me. He didn't even get a ticket because he told the
officer the sun was in his eyes. I left the scene of the accident in an
ambulance and was unable to function normally for over a year. It's not equal.

~~~
baddox
I have no complaints about the claim that drivers should more often be charged
with reckless driving, but that's very different than suggesting that a
significant portion of these incidents are purposeful collisions initiated by
the automobile driver.

~~~
stephendedalus
> I have no complaints about the claim that drivers should more often be
> charged with reckless driving, but that's very different than suggesting
> that a significant portion of these incidents are purposeful collisions
> initiated by the automobile driver.

I don't believe the author was saying that. He said...

> We’re already at the point where every car-on-bike “accident” (police always
> assume it’s an accident; drivers are allowed unlimited “oopsies”)

I believe what the author meant is that there's an accident and then there's
something far less than accident that's more the result of reckless driving,
poor driving or aggressive driving. And yet the law always errs on the side of
it being an unavoidable accident.

~~~
baddox
Perhaps we are quibbling over the definition of "accident." I would consider
an unintentional collision to be an accident even if one person was driving
recklessly. As far as I can tell, that is standard usage of the word,
especially in the context of vehicle collisions.

~~~
paintrayne
Unintentional doesn't mean no fault. The fact that it is standard usage is the
whole point -- it shouldn't be. Drivers do not pay attention, they do not look
when they change lanes, and they hit bicycles and motorcycles and it is called
an accident, as if the driver had no control of their vehicle.

~~~
baddox
I don't understand. My point is that "accident" just means that something is
unintentional. It doesn't mean there is no fault. Calling a traffic collision
accident does not imply that the driver had no control over their vehicle. It
only means that the driver did not intend to have the collision.

------
keyanp
This article is mostly nonsense. The way I look at it, mandatory helmet laws
are protecting not only cyclists but also drivers by reducing the likelihood
of a serious injury resulting from an accident.

In regards to improving bike-ability, adding more bike lanes is certainly the
best way forward. Meanwhile we can encourage responsible bike use for those
who share the roadways with motor vehicles. I'm frankly appalled at the
general disregard to bike safety and traffic laws by NYC cyclists. A policy of
early education and strict traffic law enforcement would likely alleviate a
significant portion of the problem.

As a side note, the CitiBike program has done nothing but encourage terrible
bike usage behavior and dangerous habits.

~~~
bytecycle
To justify the cost of these additional bike lanes and infrastructure you'll
first need people actually riding their bikes. A change of mentality is
required here. As a cyclist you shouldn't feel so unsafe that you have to put
on a helmet and war paint. The money spent on ridiculous bike laws and
expensive special infrastructure should first be allocated to educating all
drivers. There needs to be a shift in attitude towards cyclists so they can
feel safe again. All these passive-aggressive comments against cyclist are
very sad to read. I guess you have to be a little insane and have a certain
negligence about rules to comfortably ride your bike and be able to ignore all
the maniacs behind the wheel.

~~~
ptaipale
> To justify the cost of these additional bike lanes and infrastructure you'll
> first need people actually riding their bikes

Chicken-and-egg. On the other hand, to get people riding their bikes, you need
to offer them an infrastructure that feels safe enough to get started.

~~~
stephendedalus
Yeah. That was basically the entire point of the article. That the roads
didn't always belong to motorists. That the idea of the roads being car-
centric is a fairly recent development in human history. One of my favorite
examples is Las Vegas and Moscow, Russia. In the case of Las Vegas they've
built entire elevated sidewalks with escalators and elevators. Cars rule in a
city where people could, in theory, walk between casinos, restaurants, etc. In
Moscow there are many many large sections of the city where the only way to
cross the street is to go through the subway. On the upside that city has a
pretty great subway system, so it makes some sense.

Either way the point of the article (which a shocking number of people in the
comments here and on the article missed) is that it's this chicken and the egg
problem that needs to be addressed.

------
exclusiv
Someone once told me that bicycles have no business being on the road at all.
I thought they were just bitter due to an altercation, but the more I thought
about it - it's entirely logical. Most roads are simply not built for bicycles
and that is why they shouldn't be allowed at this point. They become a hazard
because they can't attain the proper speed and they are allowed to flop
between acting like a cyclist and acting like a car as another poster
mentioned.

It's hip to give bikers the nod because they are green and healthy but it's
not feasible in most areas because it's simply not safe for both parties.

I looked into getting one of those GE electric vehicles but guess what - you
can't take those on most roads because they aren't fast enough (even though
they are faster and safer than most bikers). You even have to pay to register
them and carry insurance (which bikers don't). Why pays when a cyclist causes
an accident? If you drive your car 25 under the speed limit, you can get a
ticket. People on bikes want to be congratulated for doing so and have
everyone yield.

You can't run down the middle of the road even if you are faster than some
cyclists. Nobody has a right to the roads. It's a privilege and most roads
were designed for cars.

I'd rather see bikers using the sidewalk with pedestrians yielding to them and
let them use designated bike lanes on roads (and lobby for more if they
choose). More and more areas are becoming friendly to cyclists but to give
nearly free reign to cyclists is absurd IMO.

The reality is - too many people suck at driving and you aren't getting rid of
cars unless you're Venice, Italy. Even if you can go the same speed as legally
required for cars (say on a motorcycle), it's pretty much only a matter of
time before you get pasted on the asphalt because some idiot driver didn't see
you, was distracted with their phone, or is just a bad driver. The notion that
cyclists can avoid that fate is silly. Personally I'd love to have a
motorcycle, but it's too risky here in California.

