Sounds like you need to reevaluate your following distance and responsibilities as a driver. Much of your complaints here are why two wheeled operators assume cars are trying to kill them. Most of this is your responsibility to avoid.
Stopping behind a car and following are not comparable. The speed differential is the key here, and the crumple zones. In your car it is the hood and fenders, on my bike it is my body. A 25mph collision is easily fatal.
> Being in front of a car without a differential, for example, means a much slower transit in turns
Differential between what? The one rear wheel?
> It's a scientific phenomenon, there is no right or wrong, but if you know it you can anticipate for it
Huh? The rules of the road completely account for these differences. There is absolutely a right and wrong.
> If you don't, you risk to end up rear ended
It is 100% your responsibility as the following vehicle to not rear end someone. Bike riders just take evasive and defensive action because drivers can't be trusted.
> If I didn't care, I would not brake, don't you think?
You're missing the point. If you have to brake suddenly in a corner for a motorcycle you made a mistake and were following too close. You should change your behavior in the future.
> At 30kmh bike brakes are more efficient
Except they can't be used effectively while turning.
> So you are betting your life on someone else's sense of responsibility?
I was very clear about this. I assume you will fail in your responsibility. This is why I am willing to break the law to be safe.
Most of the times I have to because the biker (motor or not) approached the turn at a far greater speed then they could handle
Don't build up expectations, if you can't keep them
I guess you never witnessed a bike surpassing you on the right side of a turn, like they were on a race track, just to stop in front of you when they realise there is some kind of blockage or it is a slow turn and it's not the car in front of them that it's trying to slow then down on purpose
Try to keep the distances when they jump in front of you from nowhere...
> This is why I am willing to break the law to be safe.
So you are making someone else unsafe, possibly a woman with a stroller, to keep you safe?
Mopeds stay on the road. I don't break laws that can result in me hitting a pedestrian.
In the United States it is illegal (almost everywhere) to ride between lanes of traffic at any speed. That is a law I break almost every time I am on a motorcycle. The only way to hit a pedestrian in that situation is if they are walking between lanes of traffic. I typically do it at stop signs and lights where I stop between two rows of cars so if one gets rear ended I am not the one that gets obliterated.
I will treat a traffic light as a stop sign if it does not detect my bike, which is common. I won't wait for a car to hopefully stop behind me without killing me. I do this at intersections I am familiar with. This is technically legal if you do it a certain way but I often don't wait that long to minimize my risk.
I'm not taking a motorized vehicle down a sidewalk at any speed. I will ride my bicycle on a sidewalk along busy streets if there is minimal pedestrian presence and no alternate route. When a conflict with a pedestrian presents itself I move back to the road if possible.
There are also legal things I do that are often perceived as illegal such as riding with my high beams on during the day or skipping ferry lines. If I get flashed by oncoming traffic they may be mad at me but at least I know they saw me.
There are 40 million cars in Italy (not counting other kind of vehicles)
There have been 612 pedestrian deaths in 2018.
Not accounting for the context and only counting cars. stats just count the number of pedestrians hit and dead, they could have been hit by a bicycle as far as we know.
> stats just count the number of pedestrians hit and dead, they could have been hit by a bicycle as far as we know.
Very unlikely, unless it's something that happens in Italy only. I found that in the UK, with a comparable populations, incidents where pedestrians die are and a bike is involved (with no info on who's at fault) are about 4 per year. Similar data is available in other nations, AFAIK.
And, as you state, you can only think a bike being dangerous for a pedestrian, so you're forgetting the whole amount of deaths on the road. In 2018 there have been 3,300 road-related deaths in Italy. Since cyclists can only kill pedestrians (unless a very rare event occurs), they account for ... 0.002% of road deaths?
I think it's quite clear that cyclists can easily get injured if they break road rules; and being hit by a bicycle is far less serious than being hit by a motorcycle or by a car at the same speed, right? This is less and less true as the size of the vehicle increases.
The kind of punishment you get for an illegal act should be proportional to how serious is your infringement. I despise "cicloamatori" as well, since they fill up roads for no reasons and they overtake me with 5cms clearance; but, on italian roads, as a bike commuter, I sometimes feel compelled to break some rules, at my own risk, either to increase my safety, or to make my bike trip reasonable (because some roads are impossible to use when on a bike).
I agree that some behaviours by some cyclists show a total disregard for their integrity and law. I think I've never took a street in the wrong direction in my whole life. And I would NOT expect cars to slow down or stop because I'm happily breaking the law just because I'm on a bike! If I'm on a sidewalk and ANY pedestrian approaches, I stop and I let them pass FIRST.
But, let's put things in perspective. Cyclists pay for their mistakes AND for others' mistakes with their own blood. But their contribution to road deaths and injuries is non-existent.
> And, as you state, you can only think a bike being dangerous for a pedestrian
Not only.
Directly and indirectly they can cause very dangerous accidents.
Bikers have the tendency to think that everybody is out to kill them.
But if you think about it, everybody else, even bikers when they are not on a bike, think that bikers (or _other_ bikers in case of bikers) are out to kill themselves.
Why?
Because they don't follow the same rules they try to enforce on others.
One example among many, that is easy to spot just looking around: bikers (rightfully) campaign a lot around the concept of safe distance
Do we waanna talk about how they "park"their bikes on the sidewalk so impaired pedestrians (like my mother in law who is legally blind) have a hard time going around alone?
Not that cars are better in this regard, of course!
It's just a different way of being an asshole.
> they account for ... 0.002% of road deaths?
There have been only 8 cyclists dead in Rome in 2018 in over 27 thousands accidents.
it's not even sure they died in an accident with a car, the stats don't say it.
It means one dead every 3,375 accidents.
And yet bikes are the most dangerous way to go around in Italy (statistically, it means that rarely you will have an accident, but if you do, there are much more chances that it will be bad).
> I sometimes feel compelled to break some rules, at my own risk, either to increase my safety, or to make my bike trip reasonable
That sounds about right, but it's simply justification for misbehaviour.
I too feel compelled to break rules, at my own risk, either to increase my safety, or to make my trip reasonable .
But it is wrong and most of the times I don't do it (yes, I'm not perfect, sometimes I break rules too).
When I do it, I don't try to rationalize it, I know I'm simply being a jerk.
> because some roads are impossible to use when on a bike
Then don't use them
Some roads are impossible to walk, I don't walk on them.
I'm not saying I like it or that cyclists are to blame, I'm trying to say that cyclists are human like the rest of us and they break the rules on a bike as much as they do it when they drive.
But it is also true that most bikers and drivers don't, they are only trying to get trough the day, go to work or back home because they have to, not because they are on a mission to kill.
They simply make mistakes, on both sides.
Safety is about being proactive, not passively waiting that someone else fix things for us.
I don't ride with a bike in Rome not because it's too dangerous, but because there are better options for me.
Biking solves none of my mobility problems.
It's too slow when I'm in a hurry.
It's too heavy when I need to travel afar.
It's too weather sensitive, it's almost always either too hot or too cold or too rainy or too windy.
If I'm going to a meeting, I can't be there sweating like a marathoner.
If I wanna do some sport, I go running on Colle Oppio, where I can see the Colosseum.
Not that I despise biking, it's not an efficient mean of transport in my opinion.
> But, let's put things in perspective. Cyclists pay for their mistake
Drivers finance road safety though, directly through taxes (there are a lot of taxes on cars and driving and also on gasoline)
In Italy, for example, money collected from fines for road traffic offense in general must be used by the municipality to enhance or deploy road safety, they can't be used for anything else.
If road safety programs had to be paid with the money taken from cyclists, we wouldn't be doing much.
This link is interesting and I'll review it thoroughly. Thanks. But I don't see what part of it you're using for your "cars are not more dangerous than bikes". Is there any section about who's at fault for an accident?
Cars are less dangerous for those who drive them. We're talking about being less dangerous for others, especially for vulnerable user groups.
> Not only. Directly and indirectly they can cause very dangerous accidents.
... like what? And how often? "Indirectly" you mean 2nd order effects. But I need to run directly at full speed into somebody in order to try and kill it with a bike; the weight is low (almost like the person alone) and the speed is low as well.
> But his is how they usually ride in traffic or around pedestrians
The first photo, it's probably something taken with slow or stopped traffic. It's not illegal to overtake stopped cars. In the 2nd the cyclist is in a bike lane, did you realize that?
> Do we waanna talk about how they "park"their bikes on the sidewalk so impaired pedestrians (like my mother in law who is legally blind) have a hard time going around alone?
I don't understand whether you're joking. Do you realize how many f*ing parking spots exist for cars and motorbikes, and how few parking spots exist for bikes? You can park 6-20 cars (depending on whether facilities are available, like racks) where a SINGLE CAR parks. Now the problem is that "bikes take up valuable pedestrian space". Don't you see cars and vans parked everywhere, including sidewalks, in Rome? Something like, daily?
Cars in Rome don't park in "doppia fila"?
> Then don't use them. Some roads are impossible to walk, I don't walk on them.
I cannot use those roads because car drivers are jerks, they park (illegally) in terrible places and they don't yield to bikes.
> I don't ride with a bike in Rome not because it's too dangerous, but because there are better options for me.
That's the root of the problem, man. You don't like bikes, and you don't need bikes. So you hate them. You're far more empathic to car drivers, because "everybody drives when in need".
It's your problem, though, and I couldn't care less.
> Drivers finance road safety though, directly through taxes (there are a lot of taxes on cars and driving and also on gasoline)
Only if you don't take into account the negative externalities caused by pollution. IIRC paying for carbon offsets for around 10.000 miles per year would amount to roughly 10.000 USD in carbon offsets. Also, roads for cars require far more maintenance than those where bikes can go.
I live in the outskirts of Trieste and I love my commute until the very last 500m to get to my office, when I'm deep in the city. For the first 18kms I always follow all road rules; but when I get into the city center... anything can happen. If I want to get to my office in full health, I need to do any kind of strange things, INCLUDING doing a very small cut through a sidewalk. But I don't like it, and I wouldn't do it if there were another safe way.
But I don't pollute and add real traffic to a city that is already very complex and has many problems.
One last thought: the idea that cyclists are the bullies is just too absurd to me. They're extra vulnerable. They risk their lives. A car ignoring a red light is not the same as a bike ignoring a red light, because the potential outcome is very different. They can "cause an accident" because somebody else breaks.
I cannot find the link now, but I remember a study from Netherlands where it was clear that, once bike usage goes up and crosses a certain thresholds, the GLOBAL RATE of accidents (yes, even car accidents, because more people use bikes) and road casualties decrease.
Stopping behind a car and following are not comparable. The speed differential is the key here, and the crumple zones. In your car it is the hood and fenders, on my bike it is my body. A 25mph collision is easily fatal.
> Being in front of a car without a differential, for example, means a much slower transit in turns
Differential between what? The one rear wheel?
> It's a scientific phenomenon, there is no right or wrong, but if you know it you can anticipate for it
Huh? The rules of the road completely account for these differences. There is absolutely a right and wrong.
> If you don't, you risk to end up rear ended
It is 100% your responsibility as the following vehicle to not rear end someone. Bike riders just take evasive and defensive action because drivers can't be trusted.