Sadly, only half-joking.
Was the driver drunk? Whose first instinct after possibly running over something is to back up?
It's pretty common. You're manoeuvring your vehicle, you hear a noise, you think you bumped a post or something and instinctively try to "undo" what you just did.
But also, lol.
I think it’s more easy to consider when you think about what is in the bill. Like do you really want them invoicing the company that hit you with “reconstructing their wiener”, etc information.
Cycling isn't dangerous, being on the street with cars is dangerous. Being on the street on a bike is dangerous, walking down a street is dangerous. Heck being in a compact car on today's streets with oversized/overweight vehicles is dangerous.
It's important to be precise about the source of the danger because it correctly identifies the problem.
There's a big push right now to ban people from buying and registering Kei cars with the argument being that they're too dangerous on american roads. If that argument holds, firstly, then it flows logically that they can nanny state people off of their bikes and motorcycles as well using the same argument. Secondly, Kei cars are not dangerous, getting hit in a kei car by an oversized SUV or "light" truck is.
How is this any different than "guns don't kill people, people kill people?"
The analogous argument one way would be quibbling over whether it's the driver or the car. The analogous argument the other would be saying it's the shooting victims fault for being in a place where they are likely to get shot (bad neighborhood, in a position to surprise or threaten an armed individual, or maybe just in America)
[1] https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/all-injuries/deaths-by-demograph...
Of the 1,360 bicyclist deaths in 2022, 928 died in motor-vehicle crashes and 432 in other incidents, according to National Center for Health Statistics mortality data. Males accounted for 87% of all bicycle deaths
One would argue it's a similar situation even further in that the SUV/Truck also isn't the problem, it's the inattentive driver that runs a person over. If you have a vehicle with the worst safety ratings on the market driven through a crowded city by someone who is adept at driving, there will likely not be an issue, just like if you have a responsible gun owner going to the range every week to fire off a few rounds, you likely won't have an issue.
People are always the problem. The regulations at play are generally built around the idea that if you don't give fallible people access to things that are either dangerous when handled by those unprepared, like an oversized truck, or things that are just designed to kill when someone doesn't really need one, that you minimize the chances of something going wrong.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/saves...
In terms of guns, the reality is that people with guns kill people. An intent to kill plus an instrument designed to do so easily is often a lethal combination. People don't just kill each other more often when they have access to a firearms, they are also far more likely to kill themselves. [1]
The risk to cyclists and other road users also comes about by way of a combination of factors: poorly designed roads, lack of protected cycling lanes, lack of adequate pedestrian infrastructure, oversized vehicles, distracted drivers and so on. I suspect there are also a fair number of cases where cyclists/pedestrians make mistakes or engage in risky behaviour.
As a society, I don't think there is too much we can do in terms of altering people's behaviour. We can, however, do a great deal to alter the built environment to slow cars down and make things safer for other road users. Plenty of cities have made huge progress with this. There remain plenty that are terrible, and in my experience, many of the worst ones are in America. I think the last American city I was in was Vegas and my gosh, I would never want to cycle there. By contrast, I recently visited Montreal and was stunned by how good the cycling infrastructure was.
1: https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/06/handgun-owner...
Your footnote doesn't support the first statement you made which I don't think is accurate, at least not to a significant degree.
With bikes, in a different context, something similar applies: What causes fatalities isn't bikes themselves but how the roads, rules, other people/vehicles and social conduct around bike use use and sharing of roads are.
What matters is what we want to do as a society: leave the cars where they are as some kind of unmovable force of destiny, or actually manage them to not make them dangerous.
No need for people to find the info unknown or confusing.
Unfortunately, roads were designed for cars first. Even more unfortunate, people are not accustomed to sharing the road with bicyclists and only glance at their mirrors to check for large familiar cars. Thus, to say that “cars are the ones that are dangerous,” implies you think bicyclists have the de facto right of way and everyone should adjust to your presence.
https://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Traffic-American-Inside-Tech...
They think that because that's how the law works, yes. Also many roads aren't designed for cars either, at least not in terms of safety or efficiency.
You say many roads… if you go by miles, you think major interstates weren’t designed for cars? How about rural roads… who do you think those long stretches of roads are designed for if not cars?
1. The car driver is assumed to be at fault. In absence of other evidence, the car driver is always 100% at fault for the accident. Including all consequences for hitting/killing someone. 2. If it is proved that the cyclist broke the law and acted negligently, the car driver is still 50% at fault for the accident, since they’re driving a more dangerous vehicle and should’ve actively prevented the accident.
People were extremely respectful to cyclists there, and gave a ton of space when passing
> who do you think those long stretches of roads are designed for if not cars?
The roads are usually intended for cars, yes. But they often aren't designed for safe, efficient travel with cars. Or anyone else, really. It's possible to design roads to be safe for everyone, but they often are the opposite. Just like planners still think that adding more lanes makes travel by car faster, when in reality it's long been known that it actually has the opposite effect.
Former cyclist, now zwifting instead.
As another comment mentions, this is a standard vehicle-cyclist collision lawsuit with some hilarity added by automated billing.
Cyclists make mistakes, make bad judgments, take big risks, just like car drivers. They are human too. You could say cyclists have a bigger incentive to avoid problems, but no driver I know wants to hit someone and injure them, and cyclists I know become inured to the risks after riding for years without injury - it seems to me that human attention loses focus unless something reinforces it; as a result 1 in 1,000 risks are very hard to focus on.
Cars and bikes don't mix except when cars are going bicycle speed. If your system kills people when they make a mistake, your system is very badly designed.
Sure, but there’s nothing we can do about the ground
I don't think I've ever seen real suggestions to make a seperated infrastructure grid for pedestrians and bicycles that isn't just a sidewalk or bike lane on an existing road.
That said, can you give specific examples of what you mean by "make car infrastructure worse"? Usually segregation is just a matter of putting a barrier on an existing bike lane and painting lines, which doesn't actually change anything for drivers who stay in the lines. In some cases, a lane may be converted, but this rarely impacts travel times much for the same reasons adding additional lanes doesn't improve travel times. Vancouver did lots of traffic studies on this criticism in particular that you can read if you're interested.
Are you imagining an alternative in which a bike network is added to a city, but not using "existing roads"? Where would these entirely-new roads be placed? Would you knock down the buildings between two car-infrastructure-roads, to pave it for bicycles? I suppose you could remove the car-infrastructure-road entirely and make it just a bike-road / linear park. Or you could put the bike lane underground? Or build a separated-grade elevated parkway network above the city?
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/bicycling/comments/e0qxxz/we_just_g...
One time I was going up a hill I've been up and down a million times, only to be shocked to find, after sundown, similar road with a BIKE TRAIL, some person riding their bicycle WITH NO LIGHTS, on a road where you're expected to go 45 (its actually 55 when I googled it!) or more, giving me little time to react, I have NEVER seen someone be so careless on this road, or even ride a bicycle on it, because its not a road for bicycles. So no, it's not just the cars that are dangerous, its the carelessness of bicycle riders that is equally dangerous.
People going to work typically take the most direct route there, which is usually the same road cars take rather than those trails. Thus you see people cycling on the same busy roads you're rushing to work on. That's an urban planning problem and one that I've spent lots of time trying to fix in my own community. In every case it's been held up by people who don't want to spend money on bikes and in one memorable case were worried about a traffic study that estimated an additional 30s worst case scenario for commute length increases.
As for the hill thing, cyclists are not obligated to have rear facing lights in any state I'm aware of, only forward facing. They need to have a rear retroreflector for visibility in most places. These come on all bikes by default and the only way to not have them is to intentionally remove them, which is uncommon. I assume they didn't since you didn't mention it, and I'm also going to assume the road doesn't have a bike lane since you mentioned a bike trail on some similar path instead. In that case, they're probably allowed to be there (though they should have forward facing lights and safety patches for their own sake).
Your responsibility as a driver is to drive at speed where you can identify and safely react to obstacles, including bikes. It sounds like that didn't happen here, but you're blaming someone else for the near miss.
In Florida, my state, they absolutely must:
- A bicycle operated between sunset and sunrise must be equipped with a lamp on the from exhibiting a white light visible from 500 feet to the front and both a red reflector and a lamp on the rear exhibiting a red light visible from 600 feet to the rear.
- A bicyclist who is not traveling at the same speed as other traffic must ride in the designated bike lane or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.
See here:
https://www.flhsmv.gov/safety-center/driving-safety/bicycle-...
Edit also:
At least 24 states require bike lights during certain times of day or in limited visibility conditions, including: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, and Maine.
Riding in traffic is an absolute pleasure when you know how to draft vehicles. The suction created by larger box trucks can actually pull you along with minimal effort.
Dedicated bicycle lanes on existing roads are the worst. You are trapped in an area where turning vehicles are going to T-bone you. Pedestrians will tentatively step out on the the asphalt as they ponder crossing the street. Want to swerve around them? Good luck, there are bollards or other barriers now separating the cycling lane from the rest of the larger roadway.
This is why there is a common international driving etiquette to not overtake on the outer lane. Yet, safety maxi city planners, who clearly never pursued cycling at any level, insist upon building dedicated cyclist lanes on the outside. I see many accidents posted as outrage bait on Twitter caused by cyclists attempting to overtake on the outside or being overtaken by cars attempting to turn. As a professional courier, I would have never attempted such maneuvers.
Overtake on the inside, like any other vehicle. Stay behind the brake light on the inside bumper. Be prepared to weave to the inside if the vehicle slows. If you are not keeping pace with traffic, yield to the outside and do not make a pest of yourself. Unless of course there is an immediate intersection, then you should defend against a turning vehicle.
Dedicated cycling lanes have issues and bike trails often do not go to the destinations you need. It is a nice alternative for leisurely cycling, but not applicable utilitarian transportation. I often wonder if the planners of these things have ever used a bicycle to pick up groceries or run errands.
Finally, all of the people crying about how dangerous cycling is, will most likely still complain or find other excuses to not ride their bike. That's fine. I'm not here to convert everyone into a cyclist. Personally, I have no issues sharing the road with cement trucks. "I would start riding my bike to work, if only you built me...", becomes, "It is too hot, cold or rainy to ride bikes" or, "I can't carry groceries on a bicycle, are you crazy?". It is much like the chronically overweight or those who claim they want to quit smoking. These people don't actually want to ride bikes. That's fine, but we shouldn't attempt to accommodate their excuses by wasting money building infrastructure which creates dangerous expectations for motorists and cyclists.
Stated preferences are not always what users want or need.
Then I think you've never met a cyclist. As in actually riding a lot, not as in owning a bike and having occasionally achieved the balancing act. I know enough cyclists to hear about someone getting hit by a car multiple times a year and a large majority of those cases are getting hit in intersections (and in interactions with driveways) while traveling on "separated" bike infrastructure. Because the reality is that it's never really separated, intersections do exist. That "separated" infrastructure? It's merely out of sight out of mind for the drivers. Which would be an effective strategy if your goal was to maximize accidents. Those people who keep getting hit on separate bike lanes? They already make bike lane avoidance a factor in their route selection and yet still most of their hits happen on the small subset of their miles that are on "separated" infrastructure, not on the many, many miles done in the lane.
Yes, some separated bike infrastructure feels nice to use. And a subset of that even happens to not be inherently dangerous. But that's only where that is easy to do. Yes, on an high traffic road that is so close to limited access design that it's always miles per instead of intersections per mile, yes, a well-built bike lane is nice. Even when it's separated. But those that keep cruising side streets, driveways and the like? They are dangerous thrill courses hated by all cyclists but a tiny minority. The tiny minority that sees themselves more like pedestrians who happen to sit while while almost walking than like actual cyclists.
And yes, I know the Netherlands exist. Safety in numbers can move the threshold and the exact same bike infrastructure that would be a bone-crushing through thrill course under little use can become quite tolerable when it's used so much that "out of mind" can never happen. But until you get there, prefer building better bike infrastructure over building more. And better means about separation except where it's for beyond the slightest doubt.
even when there are separate lanes it's important to stay alert for cars turning onto side streets etc. (As a driver those right turns across a bike lane can be tricky, especially since really fast scooters are using those lanes too)
Also: motorcycling.
Generally recommended to always assume you're invisible. There's even an acronym for it: SMIDSY, Sorry mate, I didn't see you.
* https://www.brm.co.nz/s-m-i-d-s-y-road-craft/
* https://www.webbikeworld.com/scientific-studies-explain-smid...
Ended up with a sore knee, bent forks and a realisation that leaning plus braking in the wet is a great way to make a nice groove into the asphalt!
I learned my last words were "AAAAAAAAAAAGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!"
Also there's no such thing as a quick hard veer in the wet, the road is like oiled glass.
Edit: You do definitely hear that, though. Not saying it doesn't fit, just that I don't like it. :D
Part of the experience of riding a motorcycle is being acutely aware of your surroundings at all times.
I rode a motorcycle as my daily commute for years, and then when I switched to a car it felt oddly strange how little I had to pay attention:
(Possibly controversial belief: riding a motorcycle makes you a better car driver. Motorcycling has made me pick up habits like always looking over my shoulder and not solely trusting my mirrors when changing lanes)
I hope that's not controversial, I fully agree with it. Riding a bicycle does pretty much the same thing, even though the evasive maneuvers take a different form. Motorcycles probably train some instincts that are more relevant to driving a car, though, given the speeds involved. Also, motorcycles train people better because they apply more selection pressure: there are plenty of inattentive bicyclists, and most of them are still aboveground. The inattentive motorcyclists, on the other hand, aren't around anymore to drive cars.
I stopped riding a motorbike when I had kids. I was a pretty safe rider and still nearly got hit twice by car drivers assuming that, if cars weren't moving, nothing else on the road would be.
Once by someone in stationary traffic deciding he'd had enough and was going to turn and drive the other way without checking his mirrors (I was going slowly enough that I could just about stop although I came off the bike). And once when a driver suddenly shot out of an invisible side road at speed (again, no cars were moving on the main road).
Completely agree:
1. Finding the gaps in traffic, and hanging out there and chilling. Cars always cluster together. If I crash when I'm in a gap, it's my own fault. But I'm not going to crash because someone veers into my lane while watching Youtube.
(Benefit of motorcycling where lane splitting is allowed: the gap may be ahead, as well as behind. Plus it feels really good to get in front of everyone else when they're all jockeying together to get ahead.)
2. Following distance. Why does everyone follow one car length behind? This is basic driver's ed. If I'm further back I've got time to dodge obstacles, account for slowdowns and react to crashes ahead. This is closely related to #1.
3. Using my turn signals, religiously. I turn them on well before a lane change or turn.
4. Memorizing my route, to avoid distractions. When motorcycling, I don't want my phone out. I need to be caffeinated, laser focused, and geared up for battle.
5. Being comfortable going slow. If I wanted to be fast, I should have put on my helmet :)
As a pilot, there is a sense of "falling behind the aircraft" when your situational awareness diminishes --- getting ahead of the plane by 30 seconds, then 5 minutes, and then 30 minutes translates to non-flying tasks/jobs too. It's a great mindset for "incident management" in any field.
Ironically, in 10+ years of cycling in London, the worst accidents I've ever personally witnessed were bike-on-bike crashes on the crowded cycle lanes! Broken bones, possible head injuries, ambulances and police called. I do recall one near-miss involving a bus and a few dooring accidents but nothing the cyclist didn't walk away from.
This always seemed like a weird trade off to me - “you are inconveniencing some pedestrians, so go in this other lane where you can die”
I grew up in Eastern Europe, where technically the laws are similar, but no policeman is going to stop you for riding on the sidewalk. So you naturally mix with pedestrians - that means you travel slower but a lot safer.
I remember going to Barcelona ~ 10 years ago and renting some bicycles to explore the city. I knew that this would be a different experience since the laws are different, but my partner at the time just didn’t care to follow local laws, so she just went on and started going on the sidewalks. The locals were _very_ strict in directing you off of them, no police got involved but I could see that happening if you tried to do that more.
Now I went there last year, and it was like the locals have “lost the war” on that - maybe because the city has built enough bike lanes that the few places where you _had_ to go on a sidewalk you weren’t that much of a nuisance or because the sidewalks themselves got bigger or something else, but the experience was a lot more pleasant than anywhere else I’ve cycled.
Bicycles should _not_ mix with cars in my opinion - let those travel at high speeds, just make mixing of pedestrians and bicycles regulated and safe and all would be well.
Really there’s no one solution that works at every scale. Bikes on sidewalks are also far less safe in deaths per mile than it seems.
Get private cars out of cities. That works
That said, America relies heavily on public transportation even in smaller communities we just call them school buses and ignore em. So cars aren’t the cheapest option even at these scales, but they can be quite convenient when there’s minimal traffic issues.
If you cycle anywhere other than the boardwalk, though, Greek drivers are going to kill you, but I've developed coping strategies (using side-streets).
E-bikes and cargo bikes are also a lot heavier than other bicycles and are getting more common. Due to higher mass and being powered they're quite a bit more dangerous to pedestrians.
I am now even more aware and paranoid when cycling but my real solution has to optimise my routes for reduced stress rather than speed or distance - I'll happily take a longer route if I know it's much more chill
Yes
I gave up using my bicycle in the city. It was very good for me, but one mistake and it would be very bad, easily terminal
It is easy to make bicycling safe(r): get rid of the cars
And with great power comes great responsibility.
I’ve been honked for waiting for a safe way to pass a cyclist. The car behind me then just zooms past the cyclist after I make a manoeuvre. It’s not like all driver are out there trying to be responsible as much as possible.
That means going more to my left (but not to much as to leave enough space on my right), turning a little (the car takes a little more space) and even turning on the turning signal (not the parking signal)
They get pissed (the cars. Walking Grandmas wave at me to greet me), so I hope I don't get shot at some point.
> You could say that jumping out of a plane without a parachute isn't dangerous, it's the ground that's dangerous.
In that metaphor cars are a force of nature. I've also heard "the laws of physics trump the law of man", and "what's more important: being right or being alive". People choose to drive; people choose to cycle; and people choose to walk. When I choose to drive, I have the means to kill someone else and I'm damn well responsible for that risk. After all, the person I hit didn't choose for me to drive.
I agree, and part of my GP point was, I think almost every driver agrees, even in different words: Drivers are very adverse to hitting humans, whether walking or biking.
I don't have evidence, but let's not imagine people are the sociopaths they claim to be on the Internet.
When I bicycle commuted in the city, I had about one incident a week of a driver close passing or cussing me out. In one incident, a driver revved their engine at me and followed me home because I reminded them that they had to give three feet of space when passing. I thought I was going to die when they went for their glovebox. If I ever cycle commute again, it will be with a concealed weapon.
In other contexts, using violence for political ends would be called terrorism. On our roads it's just another day.
There is a whole industry dedicated to selling cameras and warning radar for cyclists because driver attacks are so common in fact.
Every serious cyclist I know has a few stories. One of mine includes a passenger leaning out of a car trying to put a plastic bag over my head.
Another has a builder stop his van to threaten me with a claw hammer.
These days I have cameras too.
I don’t have the inclination to look but I’d put good money on statistics showing a negative correlation between enforcement of driving offences against cyclists and cyclist deaths or injuries.
Analogously: Since the the election, I've seen endless people blaming Biden, 'the media', etc etc. The only one I'll take seriously is the person who says: 'I failed; I should have done better.'
I vividly remember exactly the circumstances of each.
Most involve me riding as far to the right as practicable while someone driving a car hits me from behind, or quickly passes and does a right hook.
My favorite was the national parks employee who was drunk driving in Yosemite and hit me from behind. I'd love for you to explain how that one was my fault.
Which is why infrastructure in cities should not mix cyclists and cars. That is the real reason why cycling is safer in the Netherlands with separate bicycle paths and bicycle traffic signal.
And no, I’m not going to accept statistics showing a small town in the middle of nowhere is safer. It’s self evident that you’ll not get run over in a place where there are no cars to run you over.
But that the comparison seems apt is pretty endemic of how cars are treated: an absolute must, as if they were a force of nature.
Never mind that a huge chunk of our population can not drive, and are therefore excluded from society by cars. Car dependency is a very exclusionary way to build a town. (Note that there is a difference between allowing cars, and car dependency. Making cars the only permissible way to navigate is car dependency. And it's possible to allow car travel without forcing car dependency, but it requires work and is not the default in the US)
Ambulances aren't though. Same with delivery vehicles. Public transport is, but typically one associated with less cars.
All of these are both dangerous to cyclists and essential in a functioning city.
On one long bridge here, pedestrians and bikes have dedicated roads, on the opposites sides. I regularly see bikers use the sidewalk side, and the same with pedestrians on the biker side; neither is "fun" nor safe. I've actually been yelled at by a biker on the pedestrian side for not noticing him zipping by me... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Elsewhere, I regularly see people walking in the middle of the bike lane, where it's a mixed use sidewalk. The road is clearly marked, yet these people are walking there, playing chicken with each cyclist, on purpose.
The reality is that these people are a fairly small minority, but we tend to notice them. So, I wouldn't make blanket statements.
I'm paranoid though and just assume hostile intentions. I slow down to walking speed or even just stop until I'm certain they're clued in.
Last year in my neighborhood we had a cyclist die from making a sharp left turn straight into a tram. It was a track x cycle lane intersection and between the tracks and cycle lane parallel to it from which he turned there's a strip of pavement, so unless you really cut that turn, the tram should be in your field of vision.
Also there's a yield sign for cyclists, but obviously that didn't work.
But I would rather restrict cycling than trams, as the latter perform a valuable service.
Saying "we" in this context assumes you have political power.
All the decisions are politics by definition.
You must not be riding your bike a lot then. Most recently I had a guy follow me around and threaten to get his gun if I didn't get off the road
I mean you can say that but it's as believable as shooting your rifle without looking in general direction of a crowd of people and then saying you really didn't mean to shoot anyone.
Nice, dude.
As a cyclist I don't think this is completely true. I've been in cars with drivers who do dangerously close passes on cyclists and the common excuse is "oh I just want to scare them" or similar.
So while I guess it's technically true that even these drivers don't technically want to hit the cyclist the distinction is somewhat moot.
On at least two occasions, I've had cars purposely try to hit me when I was skating. I know it was on purpose because in one case the driver said "you're not a vehicle" as he came within inches of hitting me, and in another case the driver, completely unprovoked, began cursing loudly and tried to run me off the road.
You might argue that the first one didn't actively "want" to hit me, but he certainly wouldn't have cared if he did.
> Cars and bikes don't mix except when cars are going bicycle speed.
I wouldn't want to get hit by a car going 15 mph. Or even 1 mph. So I would say cars and bikes don't really mix at all, especially since many drivers are either actively hostile to bikers and skaters, or indifferent about hitting them.
Stats in the UK show that the majority of car/bicycle collisions are due to driver error, not cyclist error. Given the USA standard of driving is much lower, and policing is much less consistent, I’d put good money on that being higher in the USA.
> Cars and bikes don't mix
Yes but you’re looking at the wrong category of people making the mistake.
The cyclists have a better understanding and overview of the trafic sittuation so from the car drivers view it looks like they take bigger risks.
"Cyclists make mistakes, make bad judgments, take big risks, JUST LIKE CAR DRIVERS."
Poor choice of synonym.
But true, the system is very badly 'designed' in lots of places. Mostly where they just wanted to pretend having a system, but not really putting the efforts into (e.g. UK and its 'making bicycle infrastructure by lines painted on pavement' attitude)
They are expanding the areas the self driving cars can operate in year by year.
As much as I hate nanny state laws and acknowledge that self drivings not there yet I can see a future where humans are barred from driving. 40k deaths a year in the USA from humans driving and a fear of rightfully using the road for non driving activities due to poor human behaviour. I’m actually pretty hopeful we get there.
https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/7/24065063/waymo-driverless-...
As self driving becomes more and more commonplace and even safer we’ll likely be focusing more on the 40k human caused fatalities.
What I mean is: if the bicycle got to the intersection before the Waymo, then it would have had right of way.
Of course, it's also possible that the cyclist failed to stop at the stop sign.
But neither of us has seen footage of what happened. Presumably Waymo has a recording but, if the cyclist was hidden by the truck, that won't show what happened.
At a contended intersection, it should never be the case that two vehicles coming from the same lane take consecutive turns.
That’s not the law. Vehicles take turns at an intersection - there’s no total queuing order based on arrival time.
If the Waymo stopped at the intersection after the bicycle stopped at the intersection, or if the Waymo's path was blocked and it was thus not entering the intersection, the bicycle would not be required to yield.
At a contended intersection, it should never be the case that two vehicles coming from the same lane take consecutive turns.
1. The lorry arrives (from the North) first and stops at the stop line.
2. The lorry begins turning at the intersection, and is completely past the stop line but still in the intersection.
3. The bicycle arrives (from the North) and stops at the stop line.
4. The Waymo arrives (from the South) and stops at the stop line.
5. The Waymo waits at the stop line because, if it were to proceed, its path would intersect with the turning lorry's path.
6. The bicycle proceeds into the intersection, following the lorry.
How would the cyclist's actions in this scenario violate something in California Vehicle Code sections 21800 to 21809?
DMV handbook: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/file/california-driver-handboo...
Law: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
If the Waymo could not see the bicycle then them cyclist could not see the Waymo.
A) There is no Waymo, and the cyclist need not yield, or
B) There is a Waymo, but its path is blocked by turning lorry, and the cyclist need not yield.
So either way the bicycle has priority, no?
I don't think you're supposed to start moving again until you can see whether a waiting vehicle would intersect your path.
Even if it's not explicitly written, it's a natural consequence that once two opposite cars go, the perpendicular cars were there before the replacements, so they get to go first, and it falls into taking turns.
> Consider the sequence of events in this hypothetical scenario
They meant when vehicles are waiting for each other the entire time, since obviously with nobody waiting multiple vehicles can go the same direction. In your scenario nobody is waiting after step 2.
I disagree. Legislation does not abrogate drivers of all moral responsibility. Quite frankly, if a child jumps out from behind a parked car and you hit them despite following the law to the letter, you share some of the blame. I would argue that in all cases where a driver hits someone, they share some blame, because they chose to drive at a speed beyond their ability to react. It is the driver after all that causes the damage.
Obviously, the only solution is to drive at a much, much slower speed, which at some point becomes impractical, so we don't do this.
That's just not possible to solve in practice. Unless you're moving at an extremely slow pace, there's always the lag of noticing + decision + activation. You can drive 10km/h and if someone walks right in front of you, there may be physically no way for you to prevent a collision.
Sure, slower speeds prevent many accidents, but always sharing the blame is a very bad idea.
This is intended to reflect the inherent danger of driving a heavy machine in a public space.
It is never a necessity to drive so close to people that 10km/h is too fast to notice someone who may veer into the path of your vehicle without you having the ability to stop. Likewise to drive at a speed at which someone could appear from behind a nearby obstacle leaving you no time to react. It is a convenience that most people assume they are entitled to - largely due to it being codified in law (there are lots of things we do that are like this).
You may consider it to be a necessity, and I would have once too. But I never do this now. I gave up the convenience - something I couldn't have done if it was a necessity.
I understand this is not a choice everyone feels free to make. But it is a choice.
You can also see the recent video of a Tesla avoiding a person falling onto the street and crashing into another car. There's no reason to keep the speed lower in that area, no extra space to be away from the sidewalk and no time to react to the change.
If not, I would be well within my rights to push speeding drivers (the vast majority in my experience) off the road when I drive, and I'm for very obvious reasons not allowed to do that.
Self driving cars do not eliminate risk to pedestrians or cyclists but they reduce it by multiple orders of magnitude, and they are trending in the right direction, whereas human drivers seem to be trending in the wrong one.
Increase the unsupervised driving age to 18 (unless in an area with no robotic transport) and massively increase penalties for driving infractions. As in you lose your license on your second DUI or third at-fault collision, reckless-driving ticket or cell phone violation. (Maybe make a DUI count as two infractions for the second list.)
We pretend like driving is only a privilege, but it's more necessary than most rights that OSHA or other agencies have "discovered".
And if they’re not getting in accidents more frequently than population, that’s fine. I didn’t include this common citation for good reason.
> How else are getting to your job? Getting groceries?
Calling (or buying) a robotic car. We’re looking decades into the future when manually piloting a car is a privilege. (Or less than a decade in cities with public transit.)
If you’re driving drunk, hitting things, recklessly speeding or texting while driving, you shouldn’t be driving. We tolerate it, extraordinarily, because driving is almost a right in America. What’s changing is it’s going from a necessity everywhere but New York to a necessity where there isn’t Uber.
(In practice, at least from the few folks I know close to the incoming White House, it will happen through increasing liability for insurers. Nobody will be banned. It will just become expensive to human pilot. Or, if your FSD or equivalent isn’t engaged, hard to dispute fault.)
If it's cost effective, sure.
Until that's significantly cheaper, people need to drive.
> increasing liability for insurers. Nobody will be banned. It will just become expensive to human pilot.
Why would human driving insurance cost significantly more than it does today?
Not in cities, even today. That region is simply broadening.
Public car insurance for poor, risky drivers has zero popular appeal. This will happen gradually then quickly.
And it's only some cities where it's similarly or more affordable to not have a car. Not nearly as many as it should be.
Sorry, but this is still too lenient.
People should immediately lose their driving licence with a substantial fine for being caught drink-driving—even if it's just the first time, and be permanently barred from ever getting one again. If their driving under influence causes the slightest injury to other people they should receive a substantial jail sentence, and should their driving cause death they ought to receive at least a first-degree manslaughter charge. I know this will sound appalling to Americans, but driving is a privilege, not a right.
If pilots have so much stricter rules about operating their machinery, so should road users.
Yes, I believe that in the distant future humans will look back on the late 20th and early 21st centuries and be appalled that people were ever allowed to operate cars like this. It will be like how we think about ancient practices of human sacrifice or gladiatorial combat.
Of course, we'd have to implement unlimited liability for the self-driving car companies as to make them not hide behind their limited liability scheme to not treat safety with the utmost priority.
Bicycles are great, but compared to cars they are dangerous.
1. See page 39 of https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1901....
Most people just wouldn't have the time to travel as far by bike as they do by car, even if they wanted to. They'd take some other form of transit for long drives.
Car drivers do 13500 miles/year on average, even at a very sporty 20mi/h per (average!) a cyclist would have to ride full 29 days/year non-stop to match that.
Thus, a better measure would be accidents/hour of operation. I bet most avid cyclists do < 1000 miles/year and few do more than 3000 and that would mostly close the gap in death/hour of use.
And at the margins, cycling does substitute for driving, just as driving sometimes substitutes for flying. The different modes of transportation do have various advantages and disadvantages, but the fact remains that cycling is significantly more dangerous.
Interesting tidbit from the report is that almost 50% of fatalities are in towns <100k population, 16% outside towns and 34% in pop centers > 100k. I would have guessed metro areas are more dangerous.
https://www.menshealth.com/uk/health/a39726399/cyclists-live...
Certainly, legally, the cars were in the wrong every time... But the cyclists' mentality shocked me... They _expected_ the cars to respect they were there (and in one case they had their head down in a bike lane and didn't see the car pull out in the intersection to make a right turn) and were completely shocked when they get into an (avoidable) accident.
I certainly have nearly been in LOTS of accidents on my motorcycle around the DC beltway and interstates, but I dodged every one by understanding that other drivers are selfish and inattentive, keeping my bike in a lower gear & revved in heavy traffic, and watching out for myself. In my chats with the 2 bicyclists, their mentality seemed entirely different. I really don't get it, and I hope that's not common.
Our downtown is renovating the roads and replacing car lanes with physically separated bicycle lanes (from four lanes to two). Smart move with reduced traffic Due to recent wfh culture.
Even as a driver, I appreciate this. I don’t wanna hit anyone any more than they wanna be hit. Unless I can make about $2000 in the process, that is…
I imagine a road-building engineer would think twice before approving a road with an unsafe design speed if it could lead to them being stripped of their license, fined or even jailed.
$47K for current medical costs, $50K for expected future medical costs, and $900K for pain and suffering (long-term). So the provider may not be getting away with this.
Article does not say if cyclist has paid/will pay the ambulance bill.
I’m only half serious.
Could almost get yourself a cozy little apartment and all it would take is being run over by an ambulance
You just start there no matter what
Of course if you don’t have insurance you’re kind of screwed, or your insurance doesn’t cover the full recovery costs you have to pay the medical bills and get stuck with them if the responsible party is under insured and lacks assets.
Accident created expenses seem like one of those things where if someone else is responsible for the costs you should be able to simply transfer all subsequent costs to them, rather than being stuck with bankruptcy or life long debt if they can’t afford to repay you.
Honestly there should be a transitive debt mechanism - but companies won’t like that because currently they can just force people to settle for some minimal payout knowing that they aren’t on the hook for anything that comes up down the road.
As far as an individual who gets injured by someone else is concerned, "the state" is just another form of insurance. I'm not sure the state is any more reliable as an insurance provider than private companies; indeed, it might often be less so since it is subject to political pressures that private insurance providers are not.
If "your" means the person who got hit, it's not their insurance that's on the hook, it's the insurance of the person who hit them.
Yes, that person's insurance will have a limit, after which your own insurance coverage for uninsured or under-insured drivers would kick in. And if that also hits a limit, then you would have to sue the party that hit you for damages to get back anything you had to pay over the limit.
> you have to pay the medical bills and get stuck with them if the responsible party is under insured and lacks assets.
In this situation also, yes, once you were over the limit of your own uninsured or under-insured driver coverage, you would have to go to court to get the burden put on the responsible party, so that if that party were judgment proof, it would be the medical provider's problem, not yours.
> if someone else is responsible for the costs you should be able to simply transfer all subsequent costs to them
You can do this, but yes, it does take a lawsuit once you're over whatever limits insurance will cover, as above.
I always find this intersection of the auto and cycling worlds so strange. If he didn't have a car, he wouldn't have auto insurance, so I guess his health insurance would be covering the initial tab, and then suing the ambulance company to get their money back?
If you get a moving violation on your bicycle and show a driver's license to the police, it seems you get points in your license, but if you don't have a driver's license, you don't?
Can confirm. A friend got a DUI while riding his bicycle. He was guilty as hell, just didn't realize it would affect his driving record.
Here in NY, a DUI can really mess with your life for a while. While drunk cycling is probably penalty-worthy, I'm conflicted about it being a proper DUI
Searching the record https://www.bicycleaccidentsnyc.com/new-york-law-on-biking-w... NY (sibling was asking about NY) does not give DUIs for bikes either. The key is Motorized. So you would get on on an e-bike or e-scooter but not a manual scooter, manual bike.
WA you can't even get a public intoxication ticket, you only get tickets if you're disorderly or causing a threat. In WA they CAN take you off the street and impound your bike at no cost to you (you can pick it up free the next day). They're actually supposed to offer you a lift as well.
I would assume at that point computers took over and led to the billing. In an ideal world you’d say “well obviously the target shouldn’t have been billed by the ambulance”, but I’m guessing their infrastructure does not have a built in mechanism for “we are the cause of this trip being needed”.
After that the rest of the lawsuit is likely just the only mechanism to get correctly compensated (the insurance company pays the hospital - if the victim had insurance - then goes to the ambulance co to get them to pay, which is via a “lawsuit”, probably with no intent to go to court, just that’s the mechanism of action. The ambulance company also probably has insurance, but often such insurance is contingent on being sued, because of course).
The large amount is not actually very large: ignoring all the immediate bills I’m sure lawsuit payouts have tax obligations, depending on severity of injuries recovery can be a very long time if ever, with increased costs through out life, and then you are always starting high with the expectation of a counter offer for settlement.
https://www.irs.gov/government-entities/tax-implications-of-...
Sounds like a fun, if not depressing, concept.
Now if we could only make this work using gig app contractors, maybe explore a collab with Uber… this is so fire!
I think I figured out a way to make this scale and put a moat around it. See y’all at my series A!
Offer void in areas with active consumer fraud laws.
I hope the US will have mandatory health insurance some day.
What I'm trying to understand is if the bill was written, 'knowing' that the same ambulance hit the patient.
I mean, it would be so absurd. Some sort of fraud.
I imagine the ambulance trip is registred at the hospital at arrival in some procedure and then billed the patient in some automatic manor.
If you mean what you wrote, "normal", then I'd say yes -- it does matter a lot, but if you'd mean "healthy", then I'd say that it shouldn't matter at all.
They gonna argue he wasn't hit. Come on
I mostly walk these days but when I did bike I had these crash patterns memorized so I could avoid them.
It's a weird situation. The guy who hit me stopped but seemed like a crackhead. There wasn't enough damage to require a police report or involve insurance. But maybe I should have just to create a record of this idiot causing accidents.
Yes, definitely!
For the reason you suggest, but also -- complications from injury sometimes are not evident immediately.
As an European, I have probably paid upwards of 150k for healthcare and probably got about 10k worth of it (at what might consider unreasonable prices, mind you). Even in countries with universal healthcare, it’s not free. There is always someone footing the bill.
EDIT: a word
EDIT: at least that’s how it’s supposed to work in theory. Of course the richest people don’t foot the bill for anyone but themselves.
Is it similar in other european countries?
But hey, at least getting run over by an ambulance won’t bankrupt you! Silver linings, eh?
The solidarity system most European countries have is without a doubt superior than the mess that is the US healthcare system, but it sure as fuck isn’t free.
Those people often do have insurance. They were paying. They are often shocked to find their insurance rejected their claim.
Better people than businesses, right?! : /
(Trump will bring the paradise with even lower corporate taxes for the common people voted for him)
Therefore, the total cost of insurance ranges from €449 to €649 per month. In comparison, the average cost of health insurance in the United States is $447 to $703 per month. Although the sums are quite similar, the standard of care in the United States is often considered higher, with significant payouts if doctors make a mistake, which contributes to the increased costs, unlike in Lithuania where you'll get a pittance.
Just because these fees are not immediately visible doesn't mean they don't exist. Get off your high horse. There are very few countries in the European Union where healthcare is any good and the core reason behind it is that they're filthy rich (at least for now).
Couple of days later he got a bill for the ride.
What are you going to tell me next, that the bicyclist committed a faux pas by not tipping the ambulance driver?