McSweeney’s bringing some hard truths with this one. We could all be doing better.
You forgot to go back in time and tell people that subsidizing the oil industry might be a bad idea.
When the oil and auto industries teamed up to bend public policy to their will, making a system of roads and parking lots that now function as a continuous subsidy and magnificent symbol of the normalization of injury and pollution, you had a lot of options. You could have objected. You could have shifted public opinion. Instead, you weren’t even born yet. And, rather than go back in time, all you’ve been doing is riding to get groceries and occasionally saying, “Please stop killing us.” On the effort scale? 1/10.
I was hit on my bike while heading to college. Simply crossing a crosswalk with a stop sign and someone decided they didn’t feel like stopping while I was already crossing. I now live with back pain. Drivers can’t be trusted to follow traffic signs.
Yes, but I once saw a cyclist run a stop sign. These two things are obviously exactly equal, and bicycles are just as dangerous as cars. I am very smart.
Hmm… Have we tried painting lines?.. we should paint lines… let’s paint lines. Problem. Solved.
deleted by creator
That’s ridiculous. LINES WONT STOP CARS! Only if they paint the ground near the edge a different colour will it be safe to cycle on roads.
In most states, riding a bicycle in a crosswalk is not legal, and you are not considered a pedestrian that cars are obligated to yield to. I was taught at a young age to dismount the bike and walk it across for this reason.
Holy shit, your country is deranged
I will say that, especially in college towns, this does not always hold up legally. My buddy got hit by a car on a crosswalk (they rolled down the window and told him to watch where he was going, while he was on the ground); and even though he was on his bike, the cops took his side.
Courts have also ruled that cops don’t have to know the laws, and they are given broad discretion to ticket/arrest on any pretense that seemed reasonable to them at the time. It doesn’t mean the law allows cycling in a crosswalk. Everywhere I’ve lived treats bicycles as non-pedestrians and doesn’t afford the same considerations to them as someone on foot. Bikes are considered a type of vehicle.
I don’t think that’s totally ridiculous, but there are some effects that are: running a stop sign on a bike can be a moving violation that counts against your driver’s license, and cycling while drunk can and has been charged as DUI. I think that’s absurd.
Only 66% of drivers commit moving violations? Every instance of speeding is a moving violation, I think that number should be more like 90%.
*99%
I mean really, who doesn’t speed even a little?
Meh–old people. People who don’t drive very often and are afraid of cars. There are definitely people who drive carefully and timidly because they just don’t trust the car or the traffic they’re in.
But not too many. Aggressive driving and speeding are the norm.
Reasonably sure anyone who doesn’t speed because they are afraid of driving is committing driving violations left right and center out of timidity rather than speeding.
Yeah those are THE most dangerous people on the road. They hesitate and make things very unpredictable. Driver predictability, I would say, is a huge part of how I don’t end up a red stain on the road on the daily.
I agree. Being safe means being predictable and going with the flow, even if it means speeding a little to match the relative velocities of the cars around you. Being predictable is better than being right.
Turn signal indicator at least a full second before switching lanes or changing directions, braking at a constant deceleration when stopping, not cutting off other drivers or tailgating, and giving yourself a good amount of space behind the vehicle in front of you is all super important.
Oh man I saw a wreck just a week ago, right in front of me, because some moron decided to come to a FULL STOP on a freeway on-ramp, turn their blinker on, wait until there were literally no cars in the entire freeway, then scurry over across all lanes into the far left lane and start doing 30mph
Guess who came up behind them doing 65mph?
Guess who panicked and swerved directly in front of them?
The shitty thing is, because it’s technically a rear-end, there’s a good chance the driver doing everything right will be found at fault.
In 20 years of commuting by bike I’ve been hit twice. Both times were from cars exiting driveway without looking. Times cars driving recklessly and nearly merging into me have happened too many times to count. Sure bikes cause accidents but it’s got to be 99 cars to 1 bike.
Auto and oil created a country where you pretty much have to be upper income to live in a few high income cities where no car life is possible but you got to pay top dollar for it.
Removed by mod
If they offer $2k it’s because you could sue for $20k.
Thank goodness this reads, at least to me, as largely satire. But then again Poe’s Law is certainly a thing.
I have been hit twice by motorists/cars while road cycling, and will die on the hill that US motorists are entitled asses, too self-absorbed to care that, LEGALLY, on just about any roadway bicycles are allowed to take up one entire lane, as a full-fledged vehicle.
Drivers can piss off and cry, that the whole world isn’t cars like the auto manufacturer lobby and oil magnates/giants have tried to force us all to become dependent upon and addicted to.
Well it kind of has to be satire, since it’s suggesting time travel as the shortcoming, but yeah, it is ridiculous how little care motorists pay to cycles. On the other hand, I’ve met plenty of cyclists acting just as entitled, blowing through signs and pedestrian crossing as though they have the same rights as a car, but for in situations where it’s more convenient, as though they don’t have to obey the same rules. And, of course, the situations where they are completely in the right, but so outmatched by tons of steel that being right only matters to their family in court. Operators of cars and bikes can both be distracted or make a mistake, but only one of them is likely to face life ending consequences in an interaction between the two of them.
Man, cyclists/pedestrians like that crack me up
“The law says I have right of way!”
“Not the laws of physics, so you should still look both ways and be prepared.”
“REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE”
I’ve definitely run into my fair share of folks like that, and to a degree I think they infuriated me even more than just-car drivers, since they were making us cyclists look bad as a whole; giving reasons to motorists to hate us all. I totally hear you, and thank you for your thoughts that are right on, about the discrepancy in consequences
If cars don’t want bicycles on car lanes, then they should build more bike lanes. shrug-emoji.
Bike lanes and sidewalks are car infrastructure that lets cars go faster.
Protected bike lanes. We’ve seen plenty of evidence that painted lines aren’t really good enough. Cars will just drive or park over them.
Does this need saying?
This might be my regional bias, we don’t need to call them protected sidewalks.
If a car hits a pedestrian or cyclist, the car is always legally at fault. At least here in the Netherlands. Is this not the case everywhere?
In Iowa they just acquitted a man for driving into protesters blocking traffic.
Was that the one that posted ahead of time that they were going to do so?
Different guy.
This guy used his wife and child as eye witness testimony to prove he did nothing wrong when he drove into the crowd.
How long before they start selling pedestrian shields to drivers so they don’t dent their vehicles when running us over?
Oh lord, no. Drivers are rarely held accountable for murdering cyclists. The “accountability” usually caps out at weekends in jail, picking up some garbage on the highway, and being real real sorry.
Depends on how rich you are.
If you want a good sense of how bad it is in the states here are two episodes of Freakomomics that do a job of exposing the issue.
“The Perfect Crime”: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-perfect-crime/ (From 2014)
Then a follow-up episode: “Why Is the U.S. So Good at Killing Pedestrians?”: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-is-the-u-s-so-good-at-killing-pedestrians/ (from July 2023)
That would be amazing, but unfortunately not the case in many places, including Australia where instead a bike rider that gets hit by a car gets told that it is too difficult to prove blame on the driver, even when there is clear video evidence and third part witness statements saying the the driver intentionally rammed the rider.
Don’t ask me how I know…
Your mistake is assuming that places like the US are as rational, practical, just, and/or civilized as the Netherlands.
Not here in the US. There’s so much victim blaming. The victim always being a pedestrian. Not the asshole driving on a walk path.
not in Australia
what matters most is who can afford expensive lawyers and if they cost enough; it doesn’t matter whose legally at fault.
I think it is a general standart in europe. But I can’t speak towards the americas or asia.
@BorgDrone @pbrisgreat Unfortunately no. In the United States the pedestrian or cyclist can be at fault (I, thankfully, don’t live in the US but I lived there for a while and I noticed the laws are skewed towards cars).
God I hope not, that would be really stupid.
Cyclists and pedestrians are more vulnerable, the law is there because drivers have a duty to be extra careful around them.
Yeah the part I have a problem is, is where you’re automatially at fault even when you were careful and did nothing wrong.
It’s a concept called “strict liability,” which is well-established in U.S. law, we just don’t apply it to cars. The idea is that when you knowingly engage in an activity which is inherently dangerous, you have to accept liability for any consequences, even if you did nothing wrong. The example that sticks with me from an ag law class was the organic farm that sued a crop-dusting company when an unexpected wind caused pesticide to drift onto their land. The organic farm won. The court found no negligence by the crop-duster, but held that it was a case of strict liability. The act of putting pesticide in the air simply carries that risk, and liability with it.
The Netherlands is just saying that hitting a vulnerable road user is a risk of driving, even if it’s not your fault. It is your responsibility to factor that in when making the decision to drive. Framed that way, I think it makes more sense: Don’t blame the person hit for the driver’s decision to drive a car.
In most places in the US we have pedestrians, vehicles, and bicycles all mashed together in close proximity. Statistically, there will be people killed by drivers who did nothing wrong.
Hell, there will be people killed by drivers because the pedestrian/cyclist did something stupid like run into traffic.
This law would cause a lot of harm to innocent people and I’m glad we don’t have it.
Oh man, this is old, but it didn’t pop up as a notification in my app.
Anyway, I think we should apply strict liability standards to driving, like the Netherlands does, and here’s why:
First, it’s a concept that applies to torts in civil courts, not criminal courts. Nobody would be going to jail for something not their fault. The remedy in tort law is usually monetary damages, so briefly, it would at worst cause insurance rates to go up.
The higher insurance rates would apply more to bigger, heavier, taller vehicles which do more damage to vulnerable road users. That would put a downward pressure on the size of vehicles, which protects everybody.
And, as I see it, nobody is blameless in a collision. Wisconsin (and many other states) has a “modified comparative negligence” system, which assigns damages in court based on each party’s percentage of fault. It assigns a certain, low percentage of blame to each party in a collision just for being on the road. So, by that same principal, choosing to drive a vehicle per se assigns fault to the driver. In the case of hitting a vulnerable road user, that decision is almost solely responsible for the severity of the other person’s injuries. It might’ve been their fault, but crushed bones is not a fair and just consequence for a moment of inattention by a kid.
To avoid rambling on longer, the upshot is that I’d trade higher insurance rates for saving children’s lives.
How did you do nothing wrong if you hit a pedestrian/cyclist?
Anywhere you can drive fast enough to not stop in time should be protected highway, where there is no risk of pedestrians or bicycles.
As someone that is a pure pedestrian (tram/trains otherwise), cyclists (and rarer but even worse, people on e-scooters) are much more of a personal menace to me than cars.
There is a predestian traffic light accross a street with 2 dedicated bike lanes, that I have to cross everyday. And I’ve seen a fair amount of near misses there, mostly caused by reckless cyclists that disregarded traffic rules and common sense.
In fact I’d say a good bit more than half of cyclists do not think the traffic light applies to them. If there see no one crossing, most cyclist will just run the light. This basically happens daily. I sometimes shout after them, but meh.
And in one extreme case, a cylist, still a good bit off from the traffic light, saw it was about to turn red abd took that opportunity to cross the road himself. So he just turned left, right into traffic to cross the road. That car next to him hardly manage to brake in time, there was tire noises. Really good reaction by the driver.
It maybe a rare case, but had he hit that cyclist, I don’t think it would be fair to blame the driver. He did something incredibly stupid.
And in one extreme case, a cylist, still a good bit off from the traffic light, saw it was about to turn red abd took that opportunity to cross the road himself. So he just turned left, right into traffic to cross the road. That car next to him hardly manage to brake in time, there was tire noises. Really good reaction by the driver.
Really confused by the description here (no clue what side of the road you are driving on, not sure why the cars are moving when the light is red, or why the car beside a bike needs to brake the avoid hitting the cyclist). But two main things: as a pedestrian, I don’t see how this is relevant to you. The car is always wrong principle should also apply to peds hit by cyclists: the cyclist is always wrong.
Also someone who regularly drives and recently had a person random step sideways into the middle of the road (no intersection) right in front of me the other week, I think me stopping in time is just basic reaction someone should have. If your car can’t do that and you aren’t expecting people to do that, you are failing what should be the most basic of requirements to be allowed to drive a car. If I had hit them, it would have been my fault imo.
So a cyclist darting out in front of oncoming traffic bears no responsibility if they get hit?
The scenario they’re talking about is in a 4-way intersection. Imagine you’re driving straight through an intersection; you have a green light, everything is fine. Then out of nowhere on your right side a cyclist zips by in front of you. You have 0.3 seconds to see them and apply the brake and have your car stop. That’s not always feasible.
I’m sorry that you have such horrible cyclists on your area.
I do agree that you presented scenario the cyclists would be at fault. But the driver would still be at fault also, it is their job to not hit anything in an intersection, regardless of lights and indicators. The driver being able to stop shows that they were driving appropriately.
Well, luckily this time they didn’t. And I do know this is the anti-car sub and I’m not trying to be anti-bike at all. But there as a pedestrian from my expirence, I’d like to see numberplates on bikes.
Like on the same intersection, if there is a truck stopped and I cross, I’ll stop and check the bike lane … because I don’t trust the red light with them.
I’m sorry that you have such horrible cyclists on your area.
But it’s not just here. Even back in Germany I had trouble with it. Maybe I’m being a Bünzli, but there was a mixed predestian/cyclist lane and in Germany you have 2 very similar signs that designate how the lanes are used. If there is a horinzal line between the predestian and cylist, it’s mixed. If the line is vertical, there are 2 separately marked pathes for each lane. Couldn’t be easier, right?
Well, the city decided to pave the of this “mixed lane” with two different colours of bricks that basically painted two lanes. A reddish one and a usual, “stone coloured” one. Grey I guess. Anyway.
At more than one occation I was just walking by with a couple of people on this path, that basically is just randomly coloured for no reason … when a cyclist speeds by, yelling that we’re blocking that bike path.
And they are gone to fast, so you can’t even yell back “there is no bike path, learn to read the fucking traffic signs”.
Another problem might be that there really is no mandatory traffic education when buying a bike. Everyone just get’s to have one. That might not be that smart in the long run.
Seems pretty unlikely. If yours actually being a reasonable driver, even if someone suddenly steps out into the road without warning right in front of you, you won’t hit them. The only exception would be if they were doing something like hiding behind a sign at night and jumped out in front of you. Almost anything else and you actually weren’t driving carefully.
If you’re going at a slow speed maybe. A lot of cyclist infrastructure is next to roads with speeds of 40, 50, 60 mph.
I gave an example in a comment below. The driver just rolled out, expecting to stop smoothly at a red light when he had to make a really serious emergency brake and it did work out. Barley. I just don’t think you can just assign blame in such a general way.
When I was riding, I actually found by night it was better to make myself as invisible as possible and assume cars could not see me, since when I went out bright and shiny they were unpredictable and more dangerous.
As a daily cyclist - and as a motorist, please don’t do this. Being invisible at night on a bike is a bad idea.
I’m from a country where we have no fucking sunlight half the year, and seriously, reflectors etc are a must and we have halfway decent infrastructure for biking. So many people injure and cripple themselves or get killed, just because a driver couldn’t see them. Remember, a ton of drivers are not just assholes, they’re idiots. Half of them are on the phone or doing shit on their phone or focusing on anything other than driving. It’s no more noble to die by an idiot than an asshole.
And this is the kind of ideas motorists (as you describe it) have to face every day🤦🤦♀️
Well the alternative is to be lit up and at the mercy of motorists who don’t know how to share the street. As I said, it was more typical they’d drive erratically near me when I had lights and reflectors up than when I was shrouded.
Maybe when we automate our cars so they’re not dependent on human beings, it might be safe to be near them.
I don’t know where you live, but cycling in London on a daily basis for a commute, I don’t commonly see the kind of driver aggression you describe.
I absolutely do come across cyclists with no lights/reflectors, wearing dark clothes that aren’t visible until the last moment- and it is all to imaginable how they could be part of an accident with car - or pedestrian.
The most common threat is someone ‘dooring’ you as they get out of a parked car, or coming out of side turn without noticing you. Both threats are magnified my invisibility
I lived in San Francisco until 2015. (I got pushed out due to gentrification, and ceased biking at all after the epidemic lockdown of 2020.) It’s possible I just bicycled quieter routes. Here in California, those exiting vehicles into traffic know to open their doors slowly, lest they lose doors and limbs to high-speed motor traffic. I’ve never hit someone – or near-missed, for that matter – exiting a vehicle.
I have been run off the road from lingering in blind spots but my reflectors weren’t a factor in those cases. San Franciscans are not great at consistent turn signaling.
I’m in Sacramento, now, and yes, the drivers are less aggressive here, but I haven’t been cycling at all, yet, let alone cycling in traffic. I can’t speak for London drivers, and would probably adjust my cycling habits accordingly if I were to move there. But in San Francisco, cyclists are infamously not well liked, either by motorists, law enforcement or city hall, though there are now more bike lanes, and The Wiggle is now a recognized route.
Well,
-
SF cyclists are entitled douchebag tech bros. Just unlikeable as people. Cycling (or at least, being vocal about your cycling) seems to attract the worst kinds of people.
-
No one is targeting cyclists. That’s not a thing. It’s a persecution complex dreamed up because: see above.
-
SF Bay drivers are some of the worst in the country. No, you’re not being targeted by the person running you off the road. They just do that. All the time. To everyone.
-
This tracks, there’s actually some evidence that drivers behave more dangerously around cyclists wearing helmets.
Scientists should study carbrains more, and try to understand why cyclists trying to protect themselves seems to attract drivers like moths to a flame.
deleted by creator
I found the most effective, consistent method of triggering
into a blind rage is to simply smile and give them a thumbs up. I wonder if it’s something about appearing content and happy while they are bound by all the contradictions and inconveniences of owning a car, especially in a city.I actually had to stop doing it because one guy sped up so much to beat me to the next red light, he first very nearly hit me on the way and then had to slam on his breaks so hard he lost traction and almost spun out - all this in the middle of a city intersection with narrow roads, no less.
deleted by creator
Yeah that’s not a thing. 100% persecution complex.
Cannot upvote this enough…
I was actually hit by a car on my electric scooter. In my case, it actually was my fault. Actually felt bad for the person who crashed into me (she seemed more affected by the ordeal than me)
lmao McSweeney’s consistently knocks it out of the park.
Conveniently misses out “you ran the red light and cycled straight into fast traffic because you don’t think the rules apply to you.”
Fun fact, the vast majority of people on bikes do not actually have a death wish. Take apart that strawman and go outside
I’m outside all the time, which is where I see cyclists behaving like dumbasses
Man, where are people seeing all these cyclists? I have never seen a cyclist run a red light in my entire life but I have seen well over a hundred cars do the same thing.
I think I’m the only cyclist that does stop at red lights. Everyone else goes through at full speed or goes flying up onto the pavement and forces all the pedestrians to get out their way.
Wild. I don’t live where there are too many bikers, and I see bikes blow through red lights and stop signs frequently. I’ve had bikes fly past me through intersections while I was stopped at a red light on my bike.
I also haven’t gone a day without seeing cars doing dumber shit. Cars are definitely more consistently stupid, but there’s plenty to go around for everyone.
Okay. I’ve seen driver run over an elderly woman and kill her. I’m sure if she was hit by a cyclist she might’ve been alive to read your stupid fucking comment.
Do your light systems detect bikes? Does your law allow bikes to treat lights as stops? I know a lot of lights here do not change unless they detect a car, so you are forced to run the light.
Fair point. But even in that case, they should stop before proceeding. Most bikes I see run lights don’t bother stopping, and it looks like they barely slow down if they can avoid it.
Fair. Depending on the field of view and traffic conditions, stopping may be more dangerous though. But definitely have seen people pull some ridiculous running on red lights before (mostly cars), so I do not doubt that people have seen cyclists doing things they should not. I just know that people get mad even when cyclists do the safest option because either they don’t understand the risks involved or they just don’t like cyclists existing at all.
Personally:
I live in the SF Bay Area, home of (imo) the 2nd worst drivers in the US (after Dallas-Ft Worth).
There’s also loads of cyclists. We have a lot of cyclist infrastructure (though not nearly enough).
Guess what, the ones doing the cycling are the same people as the ones doing the driving.
Bad driver in 4 wheels = bad driver in 2 wheels.
Cities. I used to commute to work by bike every day and I would routinely see other cyclists fly through intersections without so much as looking let alone stopping. Both stop signs and traffic lights.
That said the Idaho/Oregon stop (making sure there is no conflicting traffic, and then proceeding through a stop sign without stopping, which is legal in Idaho/Oregon.) is much safer and more efficient for cyclists. But obviously you still need to make sure the intersection is clear before doing so and you can’t just blindly fly though.
@cobra89 @BandoCalrissian when you build infrastructure so only the bravest and most reckless people will cycle then you’re more likely to see a higher amount of reckless behaviour.
A parent with 2 kids in the front of their cargo bike isn’t running through red lights.
Motorists are psychopaths.
I saw that happen once. Literately only once. I seen THOUSANDS of cars blow through light and stop signs. In fact just a few weeks ago a cop car ran past the stop sign and almost hit me. And, no, his light we’re not on, he just wasn’t paying attention.
You mileage may vary. In my area, I see very few motorists run red lights or stop signs, but at least half of all cyclists do it.
Maybe people wouldn’t run red lights if the traffic infrastructure was designed exclusively for cars.
