
Cars overwhelmingly cause bike collisions, and the law should reflect that - mmariani
https://theconversation.com/cars-overwhelmingly-cause-bike-collisions-and-the-law-should-reflect-that-78922
======
quantum_magpie
I completely agree with the article. Car drivers have to have a lot more
responsibility for their actions. They are already the worst part of every
city, with their excessive honking, stinky exhaust and lack of awareness of
their surroundings. So far, while riding on the side of a road, I've had a
pickup truck driver trying to kill me in the US; numerous buses and trucks
trying to hit me or run me off the road, SUV drivers and passengers trying to
hit me with garbage and multiple people threatening me with violence (and a
bus who had actually succeeded in hitting me) in Lithuania. Just over several
years of commuting. In addition, I closely follow traffic rules, and always do
the hand signals for turns. Basically, ride the bike the same way as I would
drive a car. I also refuse to ever ride a bicycle on the sidewalk.

In contrast, in Denmark, the drivers were very aware of every bicycle and
pedestrian and much more relaxed towards them. It felt like utopia there, and
according to the locals, the strict liability laws are a large part of it.
Another significant reason is that Danes in general are much more calm and
relaxed than anyone else I've seen so far.

~~~
vacri
Everyone kicks down. I've seen drivers treat cyclists like shit, and seen
cyclists treat pedestrians like shit. In my hometown there have been a couple
of deaths of pedestrians because cyclists are too busy being macho on their
morning commute. As a pedestrian, I've been buzzed and verbally abused by
cyclists riding where they're not supposed to.

Yes, the cars:cyclists thing is more dangerous to life and limb, but
cyclists:pedestrians has the same proportion of arseholes. I'm not sure who
pedestrians 'kick down' to, but no doubt they'd be the same if they do.

~~~
Fricken
My city had 47 pedestrians killed by cars in 2016, and back in 2010 we had the
first and last known pedstrian-cyclist collision fatality, it was an 80 year
old man.

~~~
gleenn
How many cars do you have driving and how many bicycles? If the number of cars
is greater than 47x the number of bikes, might completely flip that outcome.

I just read the article about statistics errors including base rate fallacy on
HN today, worth a read:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14545089](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14545089)

~~~
flukus
Another caveat would be how many are sharing the same space. In a lot of
places cyclist and pedestrians are sharing a footpath or some sort of shared
cycle path. There aren't nearly as many shared spaces between cars and people.

------
pbiggar
Apparently, drivers are scarcely even charged for killing cyclists:

\- [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/opinion/sunday/is-it-ok-
to...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/opinion/sunday/is-it-ok-to-kill-
cyclists.html)

\- [https://nextcity.org/features/view/how-much-is-a-cyclists-
li...](https://nextcity.org/features/view/how-much-is-a-cyclists-life-worth-
anyway)

------
andreygrehov
Are cars causing bike collisions or bikes causing collisions on the road?

I'm a car driver and I'll be honest here - I hate cyclists and bikers. And
don't get me wrong, I like bikes in general. To be more specific, I hate them
on the road because it's so easy to hit a biker with your car. Sometimes
cyclists appear from nowhere. The biggest problem is that it's hard to predict
where cyclist is going to move next. It seems that a lot of them think that
since they're small, they can maneuver as much as they want.

In terms of safety, I strongly think that while car stays the main type of
vehicle, bikers/cyclists should have its own road. Not a lane, but a dedicated
road. Single responsibility principle [1] FTW. But, as we know, cities do not
have space for more roads (and it doesn't mean that they should). At that
point, a lane for cyclists is a trade-off.

Now one may ask, "why don't you sell your car and get a bike instead?". This
is a fair question, but wrong way of thinking, since these two vehicles are
meant for different purposes, and that's a whole separate topic.

Now should car drivers have a lot more responsibility for their actions?
Maybe, but that's a "quick hack", not a solution.

    
    
      [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_responsibility_principle

~~~
minikomi
Alternatively, cyclists should have total right of way on roads and should
ride in the center just as cars do. It solves the visibility and
unpredictability problem (usually caused by side-of-the-road woes such as
broken glass, anticipation of car doors opening, pedestrians stepping onto the
road etc.).

~~~
beerbajay
This is theoretically how one should ride when there is no bike lane. The
practice, however, is that drivers consider you an obstruction. I was almost
run down by a SCHOOL BUS (!!!) in NYC while doing this.

------
analog31
In case "presumed liability" seems like a troubling innovation, here in the US
we have something like it for rear-end collisions. The person driving the car
in the rear, is presumed to have caused the crash.

~~~
sliken
Heh, which opens up the possibility of fraud by backing into someone. Which
then of course results in more drivers deciding to get a dash cam. So now we
have excellent coverage of weird things happening in Russia because a decent
fraction of the population has a dash cam.

~~~
analog31
Soon every car will have a dash cam anyway, as part of the mechanism for
_preventing_ rear end collisions.

~~~
sliken
Currently many cars have automatic braking (honda, subaru, bmw, tesla, etc)
I'm not aware of any that actually record it for playback. Does anyone know
otherwise?

------
weberc2
Generally I support policies which incentives safer driving, but it feels a
bit won't to punish drivers when, although nominally" cars cause accidents",
the actual root cause is probably more related to cyclist visibility. This is
a technical problem, and it should probably be addressed as such.

~~~
sliken
I'm betting you aren't a bicyclist. If you ride regularly you quickly realize
that it's not a visibility problem, but that some drivers feel like bikes
don't belong on the road.

I was raced on road and off, was a bicycle messenger, and used it as my
primary transportation. Often cars were openly aggressive, I had a brick
thrown at me, various cars would try to run me off the road. It's fairly
common to be on a long distance ride and have one issue or another with a
motorist that believes the bikes shouldn't be there. I've had numerous things
yelled me along the lines of "bikes are for kids" and "bikes don't belong on
the road". Threatening by swerving, passing way to close to be safe, revving
the engine, "rolling coal", etc.

Fortunately cell phones have helped quite a bit, pictures and videos have lead
to convictions. There's even boards where locals share info about hazardous
drivers. The cyclist death tolls are definitely non-trivial, I've ridden by
quite a few memorials. For some reason hitting a pedestrian is often
considered manslaughter, but hitting a bicyclist is often called an
"accident", as if it was an act of god, not a driver not paying enough
attention.

~~~
FireBeyond
> I had a brick thrown at me

Apropos of the validity of your story I feel that one, well, who carries a
brick in their car, and two, the kind of psychopath who /does/ carry a brick
in their car for the purpose of throwing at anyone or anything, not just a
cyclist, is not the kind of person to be dissuaded by any of this.

~~~
shiftpgdn
Go to your local ice cream/coffee social cycling ride in any major city and
ask around about having things thrown at you. Nearly every person there will
have a story.

~~~
FireBeyond
Oh, I'm not disputing the validity of his story. I'm just saying that anyone
willing to do this is already breaking the law, regardless of "presumption of
guilt as applied to car vs bicycle incidents".

------
beerbajay
I recently moved to NYC which while slightly less hellish than expected, still
manages to be very unfriendly to cyclists. NYPD routinely blames cyclists for
their own deaths, seemingly always looking for some excuse for the driver's
distraction/unawareness/aggressiveness.

If you want a taste of the local discussion, just peruse the Streetsblog NYC
bicycling category:
[http://nyc.streetsblog.org/category/bicycling/](http://nyc.streetsblog.org/category/bicycling/)

I've lived in a few major American cities, where cycle infrastructure is poor
and subservient to car traffic, and also in Sweden, Denmark, and Germany where
cycling infrastructure is (mostly) reasonable and well-maintained. I've
written on Metafilter before about the swedish infrastructure:
[http://www.metafilter.com/140136/Intersection-
Protection#559...](http://www.metafilter.com/140136/Intersection-
Protection#5599557)

It's pretty pathetic that the "greatest city" in the wealthiest country in the
world can't provide better infrastructure.

------
i-machine-learn
It's interesting to note that a common refrain you hear is "Bikes are the
worst offenders! I see bikes running red lights all the time". If you pair it
with this report, you might think your anecdotal experience doesn't jive with
this report. As a biker, I would have to agree with the car drivers, a high %
of bikers blatantly (and unsafely) break road rules; a much higher percentage
than cars. I'd estimate it at 20-30% in SF.

Does this mean the law should be focused on bikers? No, here's why:

1) the laws should be focused on # of bad actors. There are more significantly
more drivers than bikers on the road meaning:

Probability(driving unsafely | biker) > probability(driving unsafely | driver)
BUT Number(bikers biking unsafely) <<< Number(drivers driving unsafely)

2) Even excluding the frequency of each mode of transportation, the risk
profile is completely different. A car is a 1 ton fast moving object capable
of killing 10s of people (see the London attacks). A bike is much less deadly.
The legal constraints should follow the risk profile of the mode of
transportation (which is also why truckers have much stricter rules and
penalties while driving)

3) If you do a damage assessment (i.e # of biker deaths caused by bad drivers
vs vice versa) you will see the numbers are way way higher on the driver side.
So from a public policy perspective it makes sense to focus on the drivers.

That being said, I think public policy should have some focus on the bikers. I
think humans expect some sense of fairness in their legal systems and when car
drivers don't see rules fairly applied, you get road rage directed at
pedestrians and bikers. So I'd applaud: * Stricter enforcement of ticketing on
bikers who fail to signal before turns, do not slow at busy intersections,
running red lights, unsafely lane splitting , etc. I've seen so many bikers do
this and it's so unsafe. * Education requirements for BOTH drivers and bikers
for getting a state id / drivers license

------
marcus_holmes
I ride a bike in Australia as a commuter regularly, and rode in Amsterdam and
Berlin on a recent trip. Wow, the difference was amazing. Berlin, especially,
was a dream come true. Cycling in a city was actually pleasant.

Australian drivers are actively hostile to cyclists. To the extent that I've
had stuff thrown at me (by strangers) from cars. This is a specific cultural
problem that I've not seen elsewhere. You can see it in the comments on any
site whenever the question of cycling comes up.

We also have a problem with lycra-clad sports cyclists who generally behave
intolerantly. Often they defend this as a reaction to driver hostility. But
it's not helping.

Aussies really hate anyone breaking the rules, too. Or rather, someone else
breaking the rules when they have to obey them. Cyclists being unidentifiable
by camera, and therefore able to run red lights with impunity, enrages car
drivers stuck at one of our 4-hour red lights.

It's pretty rare to see a "normal" person cycling as a method of transport
here. Which is ridiculous, because the climate's amazing for it.

------
dgut
Cars are a thing of the past. I'm in Leiden, NL right now, and "wow" what a
refreshing thing to be surrounded by bikes instead of cars. It feels human,
it's futuristic and beautiful.

~~~
maxerickson
The bike infrastructure in the Netherlands really is amazing.

It has roughly 4 significant advantages over many areas though. A history of
relying on bicycles, temperate weather, flatness and a population density that
can justify spending a lot of money on infrastructure.

I live in region about the same physical size as the Netherlands, with a
population of ~300,000. It isn't stunning that we have 50x less infrastructure
here.

------
jbmorgado
I ride my bike to work and it's incredible how asinine and stupid some drivers
are. Some of them don't even know (or at least pretend) that bicycles can
occupy the rods along with cars. It's just ridiculous.

But in the end, I actually blame the police. Truth is police just doesn't give
a damn. If police acted when they see a car disrespecting a bicycle (for
instance seeing a car passing the bicycle without holding the minimum legal
distance from it... which happens constantly a lot of times every day to me)
or when they see a car ignoring a STOP or priority sign when a bicycle is
coming, then the car drivers would learn the lesson and it would stop.

But no, the police just ignores those situations and this way nothing will
ever change,

------
jacquesm
Good read on this subject:

[https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/strict-
liabili...](https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/strict-liability-in-
the-netherlands/)

------
gozur88
If you dig deep enough into this article you see this sweeping assertion in
the headline is based on a few hundred crashes in South Australia. And rather
than say the cars were at fault, the report says in most cases the cyclists
were found to be not at fault. Which I don't believe is the same thing,
legally.

And if it is it undermines the central thesis of the piece, which is that car
drivers should be assumed to be at fault and have to prove their innocence.

If it's so dangerous to be a cyclist, we should probably make bicycles illegal
outside designated bike paths.

------
xupybd
I think more needs to be done to make the roads safer for bikes. Multi lane
roundabouts are insane when you throw in cyclists. I don't know a solution but
they are way too dangerous.

------
rollingpebbles
Pulled over, off the street, on a bicycle in Palo Alto to comment...

In California, it's the law for automobiles to give bicyclists 3 ft / 1 m of
clearance. [https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2014/09/16/3-foot-
buffer...](https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2014/09/16/3-foot-buffer-zone-
for-cyclists-takes-effect)

Other things like bicycle lanes and intersections need to be designed to
minimize risks like in the Netherlands.

Bicyclists and drivers have responsibilities to follow safe practices like:

\- not running stop signs

\- using proper reflectors, clothing and lighting

\- not getting too close to other traffic or occupying their blindspot(s)

\- not getting caught between curb and turning vehicles, and turning vehicles
eliminating space to prevent bicycles from occupying space that is unsafe.

\- not riding on sidewalks because it's mostly illegal

~~~
rorykoehler
Often running stop signs and red lights (while taking due care) is safer for
cyclists. This has started to be recognised with some places legalising it.

~~~
sologoub
Source?

From personal experience - I have yet to see a cyclist "taking due care" when
they run the stop sign by where I live. They just run it full speed downhill
and cars have to dodge them.

What especially confuses me in this situation is that if the cyclist runs into
a car turning left after the car properly stopped and then started moving
without see the cyclist speeding downhill (uphill from the car and usually
beyond the view due to the said hill), the cyclist is the one with the most to
lose. They do it anyways.

~~~
netinstructions
> Source?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop)

It's safer[1], and other places (California[2], Denver[3] from a quick Google
search) have looked to implement similar laws.

You probably only notice when the cyclists don't take "due care" before they
proceed into an intersection. Of course there will be dumb people, but the
chances of them causing injury to anyone else is still tiny compared to cars.
You're missing all the times (quiet streets, quiet times of the day) when no
one is around and it doesn't make sense to wait for a light (and for cars to
show up that'll probably pass too close by the cyclists when the light turns
green).

[1] [http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-bike-
st...](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-bike-study-
getting-around-20161211-column.html) [2] [http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-
government/capitol-alert...](http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-
government/capitol-alert/article147952354.html) [3]
[http://www.denverpost.com/2017/01/26/senate-bill-
bicyclists-...](http://www.denverpost.com/2017/01/26/senate-bill-bicyclists-
stop-signs/)

~~~
sologoub
Thanks, interesting read.

I think the key here is that stop sign is treated as a yield sign and not an
automatic right of way. That distinction makes a lot of sense to me, but is
quite different from what I've been observing in my neighborhood.

------
alrs
The stagnation of cycling in Australia is well-understood to be due to the
mandatory helmet laws of the early 1990s.

~~~
spartanatreyu
How else are we supposed to face the magpies?

~~~
flukus
Last time I lived in Brisbane the Magpies had adapted to helmets anyway, they
will semi-land on your shoulder and attack your ears.

------
micahbright
"If the insurance company contests the claim, the injured cyclist or
pedestrian has to take the case to a civil court."

If we're going to be liberal pinheads here, why don't we go all the way? Make
cyclists who use public roadways retain insurance coverage for the same
necessary risks(pip, uninsured motorist, minimum liability insurance).

~~~
Fricken
I've only seen conservatives makes those arguments, and never in good faith.

~~~
micahbright
Good faith is only what you perceive it to be?

------
vacri
How do you disprove guilt-by-default in a "he said/she said" legal case?

~~~
alasdair_
You don't.

That being said, it's important to realize this only applies to civil cases,
which are decided on the balance of evidence, not "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Absent any other factors, it's more likely the the car caused the accident.
This is just like the default assumption that, absent any other evidence, if
there is a rear-end collision, the fault lies with the person in the rear,
even if the person in the rear claims that the person in front actually threw
their car into reverse and was driving the wrong way.

------
garyrichardson
Dear world,

Please stop writing articles that argue laws need to be changed to make
cycling safer so that more people ride bikes. It immediately signals to me
that the article is strongly biased towards cyclists.

Cyclists do need to be protected and laws do probably need to be changed, but
don't make it part of your agenda to convince everyone to cycle.

