
Is It O.K. to Kill Cyclists? - 001sky
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/opinion/sunday/is-it-ok-to-kill-cyclists.html
======
revelation
It's just completely surreal driving a bicycle in car traffic. The vast
majority of car drivers simply lack the moral character and should not ever be
allowed to drive such dangerous machinery.

Cycle paths are optional here, and I very regularly opt out of driving on them
because they are in a constant state of disarray, had snow and glass shoved on
them, are too close to parking cars or end abruptly, forcing me to merge into
traffic. So, being a vehicle, I drive on the street. I drive on the middle of
the street, because (1) bicycles come with two (bi) wheels and naturally
oscillate (2) street conditions very frequently make it necessary to use space
to my left or right and (3) to make it clear that you can not overtake me in
the same lane.

Car drivers regularly think this is an invitation to overtake me _extremely_
closely, basically touching. They value my life, really any life, so little
compared to the nonexistent time or speed benefit they would get from
overtaking me. They think they are supremely in control of a large four ton
object driving at 30 mph when they couldn't park it to an inch to save their
life. They think I have done them wrong, and are now trying to get back at me;
it's a game to them!

I don't know what it is that makes people lose all compassion or basic
rational understanding of risks and dangers once they get into a car.

~~~
FreakyT
You've answered your own question.

Why _would_ people be upset when you've ignored the lane provided for you and
instead decided to slow traffic to a grinding halt by taking up an entire
lane? Certainly, it's unfortunate that the bike lane is poorly maintained, but
to wholly place the blame on the drivers strikes me as questionable.

~~~
kyledrake
FreakyT, if I ever see you in the street, I'm going to run you over for
getting in my way.

And it will be called an accident.

I do not understand why it is so hard for people to understand this problem,
but I've given up hope ever describing it in Internet comments. In the
interim, if you ever want to get away with murder, use a car.

~~~
FreakyT
That'll teach me a lesson! Seriously though, he said that he was getting run
over, he said he was being passed by in a dangerously close way. Have you ever
tried to pass a cyclist on a two-lane road without a shoulder? You'll find
it's extremely difficult.

~~~
kyledrake
Then slow down and wait until it's safe to pass. What could you possibly be
doing that is more important than endangering someone's life? Do you
understand that the cyclist has a legal right to be there, and that the reason
for that legal right is safety?

~~~
kotakota
The cyclist should pull over and wait until the road is clear or ride in roads
with lower speed limits and less traffic. The cyclist is the one impending
traffic and therefore should be the one to be inconvenienced. Also the cyclist
is the one who endangered their own life by deciding to ride in the street
with cars. Even though cyclists have the right to be on the road they are
still expected to fallow the traffic laws including signaling turns, stopping
at stop signs and lights, and not impeding traffic flow. If they fallowed the
laws they wouldn't be in danger. The vast majority of bicycle/vehicle
accidents happen at intersections where surprise surprise cyclists very rarely
fallow the law.

~~~
revelation
Are we now in magic land? Whats up with you and the other commentators in the
immediate vicinity making up laws like "impeding traffic flow"?

If you dead stop and block a lane, you are breaking the law. And I see it
plenty of times every day with delivery drivers, who also treat cycle paths as
extended parking spaces.

Not riding the speed limit is simply not breaking a "traffic law", and I can
not the imagine the state of delusion you have to be in to think it is.

~~~
kotakota
Impeding traffic flow is a law in most states and counties and is frequently
referenced in accident trials definitions.uslegal.com/i/impeding-traffic/

You should probably at least google something before you immediately claim its
made up. Oh but wait that would be using common sense

------
fumar
I have ridden a bike year around in Chicago for over four years. I have been
hit once by a car, and once by a motorcycle. Both times I managed to walk with
only scrapes and bruises.

What is interesting is both of those times, I was in a bike lane with rear and
front lights. When the car hit me I flew over its hood and landed several feet
away. I had never heard of a car/driver being held responsible for a cycling
accident. You could say I am conditioned to believe that drivers are never at
fault. Once, I stood up from the fall and realized I was in working condition,
I was ready to leave without calling the cops. My girlfriend had been on her
bike riding behind me. She called the cops.

The driver said it was an accident. Accidents happen... I know the risks
involved with riding. The cops wrote a report stating in a heavily biased
manner, how I was riding too-fast for a car to notice me. Yep, me a guy on a
bike with a bright flashing light, going no more than 12 MPH was in the wrong.
I wasn't even mad. I felt great just to be alive.

Long story short her insurance paid for most of the damages, including a bent
bike frame, ripped pants, and broken prescription glasses. But, had my lady
not called the cops, I would've been left without a bike and without glasses.

------
kika
No, it is not. But it is also not OK to prevent cyclists to kill themselves by
car. I've witnessed an accident recently when the car in front of me hit a
cyclist. He was: a) riding at night without lights b) running red light c)
against the traffic d) without a helmet

I'd say this guy (Stanford student, which IMHO implies some intellect) could
serve as an encyclopedic definition of our Bay Area cyclist. Cyclists who do
not obey stop signs are vast majority, about 50% cyclists run red lights, etc,
etc, etc. If you don't want to die, stop trying.

~~~
busterarm
scratch off point d. Helmets don't really do anything to protect you unless
you practically fall off your bike standing still.

I've seen brains on the street from at least two low-speed bike accidents
where the cyclist was wearing a helmet.

Also, it's not that all cyclists are disobeying the law. Those are just the
ones you choose to see. Drivers and pedestrians alike just aren't looking.

I always obey traffic laws on my bike.

Edit: All these anecdotes are great and all, but it's not like we're going to
be reading stories from all the people with brain injuries or who died.
Cycling lanes and infrastructure do significantly more to make riding safer
than helmets and helmet laws do.

[http://www.bicycling.com/sites/default/files/uploads/BI-
June...](http://www.bicycling.com/sites/default/files/uploads/BI-
June-13-Helmet.pdf)

[http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/19036/feds-will-
sto...](http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/19036/feds-will-stop-hyping-
effectiveness-of-bike-helmets/)

[http://bicyclesafe.com/helmets.html](http://bicyclesafe.com/helmets.html)

~~~
3825
> pedestrians alike just aren't looking

You mentioned you obey the law so you probably don't do this. Even if the law
does not prohibit riding on the sidewalk, you should never ride on the
sidewalk.

Just wanted to take this time to remind everyone that bicycles do not belong
on the sidewalk.

~~~
fphhotchips
I disagree. Bicycles belong on sidewalks far more than they belong on roads.

That said, perhaps it's situational. My city has large amounts of arterial
roads with heavy car traffic and sparse pedestrians. The speed limit on those
roads is about 60 kph (about 40 mph), and I much prefer to stay off them as a
cyclist. It would be much safer if I was allowed to cycle on the sidewalk in
those areas, as there's little to no foot traffic. In the city itself,
different matter. There's much more foot traffic, but the speed limit is
lower, so perhaps it's best there to be on the road.

~~~
3825
One of the first things my driving instructor taught me is that you have to
assert your right. A measly bicycle has as much right to be on the road as a
Cadillac Escalade. At the risk of preaching to the choir, a bicycle should
take up a full lane on the road unless there is a special bicycle lane.

I am not saying go crazy and ride your bicycles on freeways. This is more
about city streets. That being said, I truly believe the way to have fewer
cars striking cyclists is to have more cyclists assert themselves on the road.

~~~
busterarm
Cycling on highways I'm pretty sure is illegal everywhere, thankfully.

I'm also an advocate of taking up a full lane, but the laws in many places
(like New York) actually require you to ride to the right/shoulder where
feasible. Unfortunately that's not really clearly defined, so even though you
have a legal right to a full lane, cops will still give you a ticket.

Having narrowly avoided being doored a few times, I won't ride anywhere within
a foot's range of a completely open car door.

------
busterarm
I got run over from behind by an MTA bus in New York several years ago and the
bus driver drove away. I called the local police precinct (non-emergency line)
to report it with the bus number (the 4 digit one on the back) and they
repeatedly hung up on me when I told them I was run down by a city bus who
drove away.

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> "I got run over from behind by an MTA bus in New York several years ago and
the bus driver drove away. I called the local police precinct"

What do you mean you got run over from behind? When I picture that collision
the cyclist would be killed or horribly injured. Certainly not able to call
the police - and if able to call anyone they would probably call an ambulance.

I'm not doubting you, just confused by the way you've stated it.

~~~
busterarm
Sure. I was cycling down 21st in Astoria and staying to the right. I passed a
bus that was picking up a line of passengers and still had about 5-6 more to
go as I was passing it. I was already about 3/4 of the block away from the
stop when the bus ran me over.

Basically the bus immediately pulled out after picking up the last passenger
and was going way too fast not looking ahead. I got hit from behind on the
front-right side of the bus and fell to the right and ended up in the bus'
right front wheelwell which I rolled out of before it ran me over completely.
My bike took more damage than I did -- I was lucky.

------
djhworld
I think this is problem that's endemic in the UK too. Our love of the motor
vehicle, and design of the city to meet the needs of the motorist just leaves
little to no room to make cycling a safe activity.

Just take London UK for example, last week one person died and another was
critically injured cycling in the city

[http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cyclist-crushed-by-
lor...](http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cyclist-crushed-by-lorry-by-
oxford-circus-was-just-inches-from-death-8925865.html)

[http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/cyclist_killed_on...](http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/cyclist_killed_on_mile_end_road_named_as_hospital_porter_brian_holt_1_2978792)

[https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=de&msa=0&msid=207...](https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=de&msa=0&msid=207305429162328382245.00049de451f464602f536&z=11)

If cycling is to ever become safe, cities need to start embracing the bike
like they do in the Netherlands, but it's no easy task.

~~~
Brakenshire
Yes, definitely a big problem in the UK too. Although I think support for
cycling is perhaps more cross-party than in the US, at least in the political
elite. Both the Conservative PM and Mayor of London are nominally pro-bike,
also The Times (centre-right paper for those from outside the UK) ran a major
campaign on cycle safety, after one of their journalists was killed:

[http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/49196](http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/49196)

Although certainly their freedom to do something serious about the issue is
restricted by the anti-metropolitan, anti-liberal vroom vroom demographic.

> If cycling is to ever become safe, cities need to start embracing the bike
> like they do in the Netherlands, but it's no easy task.

On that topic, this mini-documentary is worthwhile looking at:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuBdf9jYj7o](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuBdf9jYj7o)

------
Brakenshire
It's pretty amazing how quickly tribalism emerges in cases like this. As
societies, we seem to require very little difference before it's ok not to
give a damn about people being killed. A disagreement about the most efficient
form of transportation escalates in a moment into life and death.

------
rgrieselhuber
The author makes all of the relevant points. When I first moved to SV, I
bought a nice bike and rode it around for awhile. Then I started to notice the
utter lack of attention to cyclists, even those such as myself who rode with a
helmet and obeyed all of the traffic laws. You're just invisible.

Now in SF, I see the same problem with drivers but I also see cyclists acting
generally like assholes, ignoring traffic laws and yelling at pedestrians to
get out of the way as they run red lights. That sort of behavior costs
cyclists, collectively, a lot of empathy points even if most individuals don't
behave that way.

~~~
dmm
When you have an environment that only assholes will tolerate, only assholes
will inhabit it.

Can you imagine grandmas and schools kids riding their bikes in urban traffic?

~~~
rgrieselhuber
No argument on the environment, and no I can't.

------
tsotha
>So here’s my proposal: Every time you get on a bike, from this moment
forward, obey the letter of the law in every traffic exchange everywhere...

Hahahahaha. I see a flaw in this plan.

I don't see why the author views a lack of criminal charges as evidence of
some kind of travesty of justice. If a cyclist gets run down by someone who
didn't see him, that's an accident, not a crime.

~~~
jbl
The problem is that "I didn't see the cyclist" becomes a catch-all excuse that
law-enforcement takes at face value. This leads to an implicit (though not
acknowledged or stated) assumption that a driver cannot be at fault in a
driver/cyclist _ahem_ interaction.

I commute to work by bike every day, and every day I watch drivers with their
heads down texting, fiddling with the radio, spaced out, or just plain
aggressive. If one of these people hit me due to their inattention or actions,
I'm pretty sure most police officers (and juries) would just assume accident.
In a lot of cases, the incident wouldn't even be investigated.

~~~
tsotha
I'm pretty sure if the cops knew someone was texting when he hit a cyclist he
would get charged with something serious. But I'm not sure how you'd go about
proving that's the case in the absence of witnesses. It's not unreasonable to
take "I didn't see the cyclist" at face value if you don't have any evidence
to the contrary - that's just a presumption of innocence.

------
rcthompson
Why are so many comments here raising the straw-man argument of a cyclist
flagrantly disregarding all traffic laws and common sense? No one is
suggesting that the driver should be at fault in such cases.

------
nostromo
This article is a string of anecdotes presented as a trend. Where's the hard
data?

In any case, the truth is, accidents _do_ happen. What would throwing the
teenager in the article (who was in an accident with a cyclist) in jail
accomplish? Should getting in an accident be a life-ending event?

~~~
nmcfarl
I don't know - but I do know that if no one goes to jail for reckless driving,
people will continue to drive recklessly. And it's not just bicyclists who die
from reckless driving - lots of motorists die as well. And yet, hardly anyone
is prosecuted, and people continue to drive tired, distracted or otherwise
incapacitated. And people die. And society seems to consider it the price of
doing business.

Presumably when we start to care, we'll start to prosecute, and people will be
a lot more careful behind the wheel.

------
ck2
The US has always had a horrible "you are on your own mentality".

I mean, over a hundred kids have been killed by gun rampages in schools over
the past several years and nothing has changed. Oh wait, no MORE guns have
been made legal and available, not less.

So basically the American public becomes trained to be desensitized to deaths,
cyclists, schoolkids, drunk driving, etc.

~~~
Lagged2Death
_The US has always had a horrible "you are on your own mentality"._

I get where you're coming from, and I wouldn't say it's wrong, but I really
think there's something else going on in this case.

If a driver kills a pedestrian or a person driving another car, there are
consequences; if a driver kills a cyclist, there are effectively none. That
contrast isn't explained by a "you are on your own" mentality.

~~~
justin66
> If a driver kills a pedestrian

The situation isn't a whole hell of a lot better for walkers vs. bike riders.
"I just didn't see him" still works.

------
aelaguiz
I see problems like this as "points-in-time". There _will_ eventually be a
technology based solution to these sorts of things. Early warning systems,
collision detection, even just pervasiveness of go-pro cameras as the price
point brings it into "standard equipment" territory (thus allowing distinction
between negligence and accident).

That doesn't help people who are currently being run over. I ride a motorcycle
occasionally and I know that I'm accepting a significantly higher chance of
injury or death by riding it. I would love to improve those odds but I don't
look to the criminal justice system for it.

------
nekopa
I grew up cycling in London. Came from a family of cyclists and motorbikers.
My uncles taught me one rule, which has saved me on numerous occasions (on a
bike and in a car):

"Ride like you're invisible. Drivers don't see you when you're on a bike"

And it's so true.

------
melindajb
Whenever I read a piece like this I'm always reminded of this BBC piece on why
motorists hate cyclists. There's a good evolutionary reason for doing so, and
it's worth understanding.

[http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130212-why-you-really-
hate...](http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130212-why-you-really-hate-
cyclists/1)

I respect cyclists as a motorist; as a pedestrian I hate them. They have
nearly hit me and my dog many times, riding on the sidewalk at high speeds, at
night without lights. When reminded that riding a bicycle on the sidewalk is
illegal (except for young children), they flip you off.

A lot of cyclists want to have it both ways--being watched out for on the
road, and riding like maniacs on the sidewalk. and That just isn't fair, and
until cyclists start obeying the law, we're going to see this kind of stuff
happening. It's not right, but when you read that article, you'll understand
why. Perhaps most importantly, it's because police spend most of their time in
cars so their sympathies are there.

------
rbellio
I'm glad that people are cycling and that this article pleads with everyone to
follow the rules of the road, but beyond that, it's still pretty sensational.

Even with the best of intentions, discipline and strict follow-through,
accidents still happen. I'm aware of more than a handful of people that have
been involved in an accident where they or another person have died and no
criminal charges followed.

I would think that in most cases where a vehicle and a bicycle are involved,
the risk of death to the cyclist is more likely due to the size difference
between the two (the author hints to the same thing). This is something that
motorcyclists have been aware of and dealing with for some time.

In places like Minneapolis, there exist tons of specially created bike paths
that allow for bicyclists to travel throughout the city without risk of
colliding with motor vehicles. The road is a dangerous place, regardless of
transportation method and I'd much rather avoid it if not surrounded by
technology designed to survive in it.

------
thetrb
Are there any statistics what happens to drivers at fault that kill another
car driver?

What would be the "best" outcome in these cases? Do you want to throw someone
in jail for making an unintentional mistake? Should there just be a civil
lawsuit where either the driver or the insurance pays to the victim's family?

I don't have an answer to that, just asking for opinions.

~~~
mikeash
At the very least, loss of driving privileges pending classwork and retesting
should be required.

If a death is accidental then that lessens the severity, but it's still pretty
high. If we're going to let you drive a two-ton hunk of metal in close
proximity to squishy humans, then you bear a substantial responsibility to
have the capability to do this safely.

Unfortunately, this attitude is anathema in the US. Personally, I think we
should raise the driving age, _greatly_ raise driving test standards, and
require regular re-testing at an interval of a couple of years. I got my
license at the age of 16 by passing a test that a half-blind monkey would have
no trouble with, and that was the last time that anyone ever officially
inspected my driving. It's insane.

But this will never happen, because a large segment of the US population would
tread that sort of thing as an attack on their rights. People generally
_vastly_ overestimate their own skill behind the wheel and take the idea of
regular testing as a slight against them.

I have to go through a skills check every two years in order to keep legally
flying airplanes, even though the only person I'm ever likely to kill there is
myself and my passenger if I have one. But I'm allowed to drive a car that
could easily kill a dozen people or more if driven negligently, even though I
haven't been tested on my skills in almost two decades.

------
hetman
Perhaps the physical disparity between these two modes of transport makes them
so incompatible they just shouldn't be sharing the same space at all.
Unfortunately cities just haven't been built with this in mind, so making the
adjustment seems near impossible at this point.

------
swalling
It's no surprise the author of this piece is from San Francisco. SF is a
particularly dangerous city to cycle in, at least for commuters. Riding on the
main drags of Market street, Mission, and others is exceedingly dangerous,
since drivers are reckless and you're competing with MUNI buses, streetcars,
and in packed cycling lanes.

I'm originally from Portland, which is a cyclist's heaven for a major city,
but there's still too much competition with cars. I've also spent time in
small towns like Davis, which is probably the cycling capital of the States.
The only solution I can see for really safe cycling is to create cycling-only
lanes that don't compete with cars and pedestrians.

------
CookWithMe
For those questioning whether having and enforcing laws that protect cyclists
may help:

In Germany, drivers are obligated to look back over their shoulder when they
make a right-turn to make sure they don't run over a cyclist. This law is
being actively taught, checked during the driver test, and enforced.

In Poland, a similar law was passed only 2 years ago. Driving a bicycle in
Poland is considered more dangerous than driving one in Germany - cycle trip
guides (that run through both countries) specifically mention that one should
be much more careful around crossings and cars turning right in Poland.

Berlin, where I live, is quite close to Poland, so there are often polish
drivers around. I'm careful in general, because there are enough inattentive
German drivers... but once they've seen me because they've overtaken me, they
will make sure not to run me over. Polish drivers, on the other hand, expect
that the cyclist will give way in certain situations (i.e. they make a right
turn across a bike lane) - because they have learned it that way in driving
school and it works this way in their home country. Luckily, it always worked
out, but I had several very close encounters with Polish drivers.

So, yes, having and enforcing laws to protect cyclists do help and increase
safety.

(I may add that I don't hold a grudge against Polish people - in fact, most
I've met are more easy going and less grumpy than the average German :-) I'm
glad they passed this law recently and I'm sure the situation will improve in
the long term).

~~~
jackmaney
How about enforcing laws against cyclists that constantly break traffic laws?

~~~
collyw
Sounds like road envy to me. I know plenty of cyclist that have fines over
here.

And read this, as it suggests sticking to the rules may be more dangerous for
cyclists.

[http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/may/21/women-cyclists-
mos...](http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/may/21/women-cyclists-most-
accidents)

~~~
jackmaney
The rules of the road are the rules of the road and--unless otherwise
specified--are to be followed by cyclists and drivers. Period. No exceptions.

------
nick2
I don't understand how people can ride bicycles on public roads along side
cars and trucks. The average driver is highly incompetent. Most people don't
get proper training how to drive. A lot of people are very distracted with
talking on cell phones or eating while driving. Heavy objects moving at high
speeds can be very dangerous.

~~~
MikusR
I don't understand how people can walk on public sidewalks along bicyclists
that ignore all traffic rules and drive wherever they like. The average
cyclist is highly incompetent. Most people don't get any training at all. A
lot of people are very distracted with talking on cell phones or listening to
music with headphones while cycling. Bicycles moving at high speeds can be
very dangerous to pedestrians that are walking on sidewalks.

~~~
tbrownaw
I would imagine that it's related to how getting run over by a bicycle tends
to be somewhat less fatal that getting run over by a car.

------
mjhagen
This was so weird to read as a Dutchman. In the Netherlands the automobile
driver is (almost) always at fault.

------
YZF
Story 1

I was on my motorcycle on the left lane in a city when a car way ahead of me
just plowed into a bicycle riding on the side of the road ahead of it as if it
wasn't there. The car driver was dreaming or sleeping- I don't know. The
bicycle rider, an elderly person, almost went through the windshield. Me and
some others stopped to help. Luckily he survived.

Story 2

When I grew up I was on my bicycle all the time. I was one of the cyclists you
may see disobeying traffic rules but I never did it in any dangerous way, to
myself or to traffic around me. I had zero encounters involving cars though I
did have a few scary falls involving myself doing stupid stuff. This is over
years of riding every day.

The point I am trying to make here is that treating a bicycle like a car is
stupid. It's almost as stupid as saying pedestrians should walk on the road,
stop at stop signs, change lanes when they want to turn, and stop at traffic
lights. Bicycles sit somewhere between pedestrians and motorized traffic,
they're not one and they're not the other.

These days I am very careful about where and how I ride my bicycle. This is
because I don't have that sixth sense anymore of what's going on around me as
I don't ride as much and I also don't live in the same place. New riders in a
new environment should be very very careful. I will often prefer to ride on an
empty sidewalk to riding on the road as the odds of getting mowed down are
much lower (but watch out for cars zooming out of driveways). As a driver I
give plenty of room to cyclists, if I can I move out of their lane, because I
know that a bicycle may simply move into my path at any point and I know how
hard it is for a cyclist to hold a line perfectly over a length of time.

Adding another thought here: It seems car drivers these days are more isolated
from what goes on around them for various reasons. I see this even in myself
as my car is better insulated and there are more distractions (GPS, phone,
etc). This is yet another problem in sharing the road.

~~~
busterarm
> New riders in a new environment should be very very careful.

Very. I narrowly avoided getting creamed by one of my neighbors who wasn't
looking where they were driving about a week after moving here. Unfortunately
I tried to hop a 6-inch-plus curb to avoid getting hit and wound up going over
the bars and skinning my hands and arms pretty badly.

------
antonius
If there was ever a title to draw you into reading the article.. this is it.

------
collyw
Hmmm. The final suggestion of sticking exactly to the letter of the law isn't
in my opinion what makes me safe.

I break the rules. I stay out of the road of cars as much as I can. I believe
this makes me safer.

[http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/may/21/women-cyclists-
mos...](http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/may/21/women-cyclists-most-
accidents)

This article shows that women have far more accidents than men, and it is
suggested that it is because they don't break the rules as much.

------
desireco42
From my local Chicago experience and we got Divvy recently, woohoo ! cyclists
are the one who are reckless and endangering other traffic participants.

Obviously not all, but essentially driving bicycle is simply activity for
which traffic laws were not made, it is hard to stop and go on the bicycle
etc. Having cyclists whiz by you while you drive is often unexpected.

So there. Until we get something like Bogota, Colombia, these things will
happen.

Did I mention we have Divvy in Chicago :)

------
rwmj
I cycle occasionally and pretty much 1 journey in 10 I'm either hit by or have
a scary near-miss with a car driver.

------
imwhimsical
TL;DR — No.

~~~
rcthompson
You must not have read the article, because that's definitely not the TL;DR.
Sentences like this tell a very different story:

> We do not know of a single case of a cyclist fatality in which the driver
> was prosecuted, except for D.U.I. or hit-and-run.

That sure sounds to me like society has _de facto_ decided "It's OK to kill
cyclists as long as you aren't drunk and you stick around to apologize
afterward."

~~~
tsotha
Or society has _de facto_ decided there's no point in sending someone to jail
for a legitimate accident.

~~~
rcthompson
So you're saying that 100% of collisions between cars and bikes are either the
cyclist's fault or "legitimate accidents", and 0% are the motorist's fault?

~~~
tsotha
There's a big difference between civil liability and criminal culpability. If
you're not drunk or driving recklessly, and you have no criminal intent,
hitting someone isn't _illegal_ even if you're 100% at fault. Nor should it
be.

------
tnuc
Legally it's OK to kill cyclists.

Lobbyists who work for car companies, write the law on road safety.

