Stupid? Yes. Illegal? Yes. Did they learn anything? Probably not, based on their reaction.
Oh cool, you met a single bad cyclist. Every time I go out on foot or on bike I meet like 3 bad drivers. Oh, and when I meet a bad driver I am likely to die or be critically injured, when you meet a bad cyclist you're likely to scratch your paint.
It's important to zoom out and have some perspective.
I could say the same to you.
I'm listing one of many bad experiences.
Look at my other comments - I'm advocating for stricting driver testing because the current stuff is a joke.
How about the percentage of bad drivers vs bad cyclists? I see a lot of bad drivers because they're more drivers. I'd guess about 1 in 40 cars I see are doing something illegal and unsafe. I'd say I see 1 in 10 bicyclists doing something illegal and unsafe.
Yes, the severity is likely higher with a car. But don't handwave away the possibility of serious injury or death in an accident involving a bad cyclist, particularly if another driver is trying to avoid hitting them. Hitting a cyclist can be a lot like hitting a deer, and there are fatalities associated with that every year.
Edit: why disagree?
Almost every driver breaks the speed limit on a regular basis. It happens so often that it’s completely normalised and ignored, despite the fact it significantly increases the risk of serious injury and death to vulnerable road users.
Fatality rate of pedestrians in car related collisions rises from something like 10% to 100% between the speeds of 30mph and 40mph. Yet many drivers see no issue with ignoring a 20mph or 30mph speed limit in a residential area.
Just curious... Do you have asource for your data though? Google seems to indicate that cyclists and drivers are similar in their law breaking. https://whyy.org/articles/cyclists-violate-traffic-law-no-mo...
I'd love to find data like this for the US. If your Google-Fu is better, can you source me some? https://fullfact.org/news/are-cyclists-blame-road-accidents/
> How about the percentage of bad drivers vs bad cyclists? I see a lot of bad drivers because they're more drivers. I'd guess about 1 in 40 cars I see are doing something illegal and unsafe. I'd say I see 1 in 10 bicyclists doing something illegal and unsafe.
Collected data disagrees with you. Strongly suggesting you’re falling prey to confirmation bias, or you’ve become highly desensitised to driver misbehaviour. Neither of which would be surprising if you live and drive in the US (my experience of driving in the US, is that it’s almost designed to make it hard to do the right thing as a driver, little to know affordances in the infrastructure to allow for normal human error).
> Just curious... Do you have asource for your data though? Google seems to indicate that cyclists and drivers are similar in their law breaking.
I assume these conclusions change by locality, and collections method. However I’ve never seen a study demonstrate that cyclists break the law substantially more than drivers. Certainly nothing close to the 4:1 ratio you suggest.
> I'd love to find data like this for the US. If your Google-Fu is better, can you source me some?
I don’t have any US data unfortunately, I’m mostly interested in the UK where I live.
Ultimately the TL;DR is that cyclists are no worse at rule breaking than drivers. They just tend to break different rules, and driver rule breaking is almost entirely normalised. Big difference of course is severity of outcome, which pedestrian fatality rates suggest is about 400x to 1000x greater when a car is involved.
If drivers really cared about the safety of road users, they be up in arms about poor driving standards, and the lack of consequences for drivers that kill people. They wouldn’t be shouting about cyclists.
Source? Also note the phrasing "illegal and unsafe". Strictly illegal behavior seems to be about equal based on the link I provided.
"If drivers really cared about the safety of road users, they be up in arms about poor driving standards,"
Which my comments advocate for.
Most people aren't advocating for tougher standards because they're afraid their privileges will be taken away. This appears true for both driver testing and calls for cyclist licensing. Just how the comments on this post are mostly about each side pointing the finger at the other.
Also, it's possible the drivers like to yell about cyclists doing illegal and unsafe things because they perceive more risk and want to avoid a negative result. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23021420/
Are you saying that when driver breaks the law, it not unsafe, or more frequently not unsafe than when a cyclist does it? How do you square that with this statement?
> Yes, the severity is likely higher with a car.
With regards to licensing, there are real logistical issues and macro scale affect associated with that approach.
Licensing would be expensive and very difficult to enforce, not that governments haven’t investigated the possibility before. It would presumably require even children to be licensed before going near a bike, which in turn would basically eliminate cycling as form of transport. Who can be bother with all that hassle?
It also feels entirely disproportionate to risk. The stats show the bikes don’t kill or injure people very often, hardly greater than injuries and fatalities caused by pedestrian-pedestrian collisions. Compared to cars that kill dozens every day.
If there was data, rather than hysteria, demonstrating a high risk caused by cyclists then I would agree. But there isn’t, and I doubt you’re going to advocate for licensing for pedestrians as well?
When a driver or cyclists breaks the law, it is not necessarily unsafe.
"Who can be bother with all that hassle?"
What hassle? You're implying details that aren't there. It wouldn't be difficult at all to require online training/testing for a low fee. This is already done commonly with boating licenses and us low cost and easy. And yes, kids get boater certificates too. Based on the data, they are the cycling age group that would most benefit from the knowledge in the training/test.
"It also feels entirely disproportionate to risk."
How so? The data I posted about UK cycling accidents shows about 52% involve a factor on cyclists end. If these people are at risk, then we should attempt to get this number down to zero. It seems the data suggests that even if we eliminate driver errors, we would still be left with just under 40% caused solely by cyclist error.
"If there was data, rather than hysteria,"
No hysteria here, just data.
Sure, but I would argue that law breaking is good proxy for unsafe behaviour. And rates of law breaking are similar between drivers and cyclists, so to say that doesn’t demonstrate that cyclists don’t behave more unsafely than drivers would require you believe that driver rule breaking is somehow inherently safer (on average) than cyclist rule breaking.
> What hassle? You're implying details that aren't there. It wouldn't be difficult at all to require online training/testing for a low fee. This is already done commonly with boating licenses and us low cost and easy. And yes, kids get boater certificates too. Based on the data, they are the cycling age group that would most benefit from the knowledge in the training/test.
What percentage of children have a boater licence? What percentage of children have a bike? Do you think those numbers are even vaguely comparable? The barrier to entry for boating is very high regardless of licensing, that is not true of biking.
Schools are quite capable of running bike training courses without a licensing scheme. Just like they’re quite capable of teaching any other subject. If you want to advocate for better bike training in schools, then I’m right there with you, I just don’t see how licensing helps with that endeavour.
> How so? The data I posted about UK cycling accidents shows about 52% involve a factor on cyclists end. If these people are at risk, then we should attempt to get this number down to zero.
Where have you linked this? Additionally licensing should focus on ensuring that people can’t engage in an activity that endangers others with a demonstration of capability, not just endanger themselves. Otherwise we’ll need licensing for every human activity. I argue that cycling doesn’t substantially endanger anyone except the biker, and that there are plenty of other everyday activities that endanger people more than cycling, which aren’t licensed.
> "If there was data, rather than hysteria," No hysteria here, just data.
You haven’t provided the data I'm afraid. Certainly not data demonstrating the risk of unlicensed cyclists to non-cyclists.
"Do you think those numbers are even vaguely comparable? The barrier to entry for boating is very high regardless of licensing, that is not true of biking."
Why do you think these numbers should be comparable? What barrier to entry; access to water? This is more common in some areas. Also, what do barriers to entry in boating have to do with this? If anything the fact that there are higher barriers and yet it's extremely easy to get a license would support my position.
"Schools are quite capable of running bike training courses without a licensing scheme."
I'd be for this. One drawback is that schools could teach a lot of things, but don't. There would be less pushback if we didn't push this into the curriculum too. The other drawback is that it doesn't cover the adults.
"Where have you linked this?"
https://fullfact.org/news/are-cyclists-blame-road-accidents/
"Additionally licensing should focus on ensuring that people can’t engage in an activity that endangers others with a demonstration of capability,"
Is this just your opinion, or is there a definition somewhere? There are licensing requirements for all sorts of things that don't provide risks to other people, but do to property, or to themselves. And particularly if one wants to access community resources, especially when the modest fees are used to provide safe infrastructure (such as boat ramps in the case of boating).
"You haven’t provided the data I'm afraid. Certainly not data demonstrating the risk of unlicensed cyclists to non-cyclists."
Considering the fact you missed my link... the main point is that cyclists contribute to their own accidents as evidenced by the data. My point about being a danger to others is common sense - these accidents caused by cyclists at least produced damage to property. There are occurances of fatalities and injuries to pedestrians too. Nobody has quantified them as far as I can tell. But we're talking about moot here because this detail doesn't matter to my main point (that everyone has been derailing). I really wish I didn't participate in many of these, but I got baited in by that troll and now everyone else is picking apart the details of the response.
If you read my comments, my main point is that there needs to be better training/testing for drivers and cyclists if we want cyclist involved accidents to decrease. The (limited) data absolutely shows near equal fault, and those faults being attributed to driver/cyclist error. Now we could say self training is sufficient. I'd even buy that if it weren't for all the issues I've seen. But these accidents do in fact cause harm to others on shared infrastructure, even if physical injuries are less common. We require permits for assemblies that block roads, permits for special events in public areas or noise exceptions, etc, because they inconvenience the public. So it seems acceptable and reasonable to require some basic training and testing instead of simply blaming it 100% on the drivers as the data doesn't support that.
Money. Boating is an expensive sport. Find me a boat, or even a rental, for less than $100. You can easily find second hand bikes for $50. Boating is also a pure luxury for most, where as cycling can be a necessity for those that can’t afford a car.
> Is this just your opinion, or is there a definition somewhere? There are licensing requirements for all sorts of things that don't provide risks to other people, but do to property, or to themselves. And particularly if one wants to access community resources, especially when the modest fees are used to provide safe infrastructure (such as boat ramps in the case of boating).
It’s my opinion, but find me a government enforced license where that isn’t true? For boating there’s clearly a huge safety element, every person you take out on the boat is relying on you to get them home safe. Just talk to any coastguard (or watch Smarter Every Day’s YouTube series) to see exactly how people end up drowning while boating in a manner that appears normal and safe.
> Considering the fact you missed my link... the main point is that cyclists contribute to their own accidents as evidenced by the data.
The article spends quite a bit of time explaining why you can’t draw the conclusions you’ve derived from the data, including caveats from the data collectors themselves.
> The (limited) data absolutely shows near equal fault, and those faults being attributed to driver/cyclist error.
It shows no such thing. It show contributory factors, nothing about fault. A cyclist that didn’t notice a car pulling out of junction while the cyclist had right of way, might well be marked down as a contributory factor. After all, if the cyclist has been paying better attention, they might have been able to avoid the inattentive driver, but the fault still sits with the driver for failing to properly check for traffic before pulling out.
Even if we take the data at face value and say the driver and cyclists are at equally at fault, then surely we should allocate greater responsibility to the individual in the position of greater power? After all, driver chose to get into a machine quite capable to killing as a consequence of minor fault on the part of the operator, the cyclist didn’t. Surely drivers should take responsibility for their use of such a deadly machine, rather than just expecting everyone else to compensate for their mistakes with potentially fatal outcomes?
> But these accidents do in fact cause harm to others on shared infrastructure, even if physical injuries are less common.
This applies to walking as well. There have been fatal pedestrian-pedestrian collisions. I guess we should licence and permit walking as-well? After all multiple pedestrians are killed everyday by drivers, don’t they need protecting from their incompetence as well?
If you want your licence for bike argue to hold any water, you need to explain why it shouldn’t apply to walking as well. The risk provide of cycling is substantially closer to walking than it is driving.
This is, again, a moot tangent. Please focus on the important point - that a license can be obtain very easily through online education. And yes, many people practically give away old canoes. Strap a trolling motor on it and you need a license.
"find me a government enforced license where that isn’t true?"
Apiary license, among others.
"Even if we take the data at face value and say the driver and cyclists are at equally at fault, then surely we should allocate greater responsibility to the individual in the position of greater power?"
Moot. The percentage of shared contributing factors is low.
"might well be marked down as a contributory factor."
Sure, then we can exclude the very small number with the shared contributing factors.
"The article spends quite a bit of time explaining why you can’t draw the conclusions you’ve derived from the data"
Where at?
"After all, driver chose to get into a machine quite capable to killing as a consequence of minor fault on the part of the operator, the cyclist didn’t."
Bias again. That is a consequence, although more rare, for cyclists.
"Surely drivers should take responsibility for their use of such a deadly machine, rather than just expecting everyone else to compensate for their mistakes with potentially fatal outcomes?"
Tangent, again. I never said anything about drivers not accepting responsibility for their actions. In a proper system, all participants should be anticipating faults of others for maximum safety.
"If you want your licence for bike argue to hold any water, you need to explain why it shouldn’t apply to walking as well."
No, you're the one pulling in walking and the onus would be on you to show why it should. You can research case law cycling DUI and explain to me why it applies to bicycles and not walking - there will be your answers.
It seems you're not interested in a real discussion and have provided substantial bias in your writing. Good luck. I'm done here.
That’s ok, I can see you’ve already decided how this issue should be “fixed”, and you’re not interested in learning more. Ultimately the world isn’t heading in the direction you think it should, so I won’t worry too much about your view points.
You're still not zooming out and showing a large lack of empathy. I beg you to go to any cyclist thread on any platform and look at the lived experiences of cyclists vs drivers. Or just talk to some. Or try riding a bike through a city or suburb yourself to do things like get groceries and follow non-standard bike paths to actually do things. I'm not talking about riding a hidden off the road bike path, I mean commuting.
Car-centric infrastructure is violent and makes it so that the default affordance is towards the driver.
1. Turning right on red is dangerous for cyclists, yet legal for cars. 2. Bike lanes are unprotected and far too dangerous for the average commuter, forcing cyclists onto shitty sidewalks with obscured visibility. 3. Intersections and right of way laws in most states make it so cyclists must remain in a dangerous area (an intersection) for longer than is necessary with safe stop laws. 4. Automobiles have such diversity that many people cant even safely see cyclists if they were to follow the "rules of the road" because their visibility is so severely limited. Source : Me any time some asshole in a lifted truck pulls up next to me at a red light when I'm in the bike lane and his door handle is above my fucking head. 5. Bike paths are often obscured from cars until it's too late. Also drivers aren't checking bike paths when turning or approaching an intersection 6. Ever seen someone pull out of a gas station or parking lot? Zero percent chance they are checking the bike lane. Quick head turn to the left, see no cars, then full speed ahead. This is also caused by shitty infrastructure that puts cyclists in the blind spot.
You wanna license cyclists? Fine. I expect an equal amount of my tax money to go to bike-centric infrastructure then. I want to see new bike lanes being built instead of new 6 lane roads.
but it doesn't matter, all I ever see from people who haven't had to ride a bike or walk to work is the same ol "well ackshually bikes are dangerous too". And it's so fucking tone-deaf; and after a literally uncountable number of incidents where I've almost been killed, or I've been injured, or thrown from my bike, or cut off; I'm tired of pretending I'm not upset about it.
It's my lived experience where I have to either drive, or be in a stress induced hyper-vigilant ride for my fucking life every time I want to go to a store 4-5 miles away. I just can't imagine being wrapped in 2000 pounds of steel with airbag pillow cloud fucking crumple zone impact rated death machine, and pointing to 100 lbs of flesh on a 10lb aluminum frame and being like "No actually that's the problem and I'm so scared of them I need to make sure the entire world conforms to what I'm doing and leaves no room for them to interact with me"
"You're still not zooming out and showing a large lack of empathy."
I have zoomed out and have empathy. What makes you say I don't? Just that you disagree with my statement that some cyclist do illegal and unsafe things?
Most of the things you mentioned as issues are about education and infrastructure. Improving thr infrastructure would be great. It's happening, but will take time to fully catch on and have implementation funding. The education part goes both ways. You're on a bike and I'm assuming you follow the laws. So from your perspective drivers are the problem because you've already controlled the risk on your end (or are blind to it). The same is true for the drivers' perspective.
"I expect an equal amount of my tax money to go to bike-centric infrastructure then."
Equal how? On a per capita basis, that's fine. But a lot of the funding for roads is done via fuel tax and tolls. With such low use, there's not a lot of political incentive to raise taxes for this funding either. Maybe that will change.
"people who haven't had to ride a bike or walk to work"
I've riden bikes on suburban streets and I've walked to work, the store, and other places on a variety of roads. Yes you have to be vigilant. Arguably the people driving should be vigilant too. But that comes back to testing/training again.
"No actually that's the problem and I'm so scared of them I need to make sure the entire world conforms to what I'm doing and leaves no room for them to interact with me"
You've grossly misconstrued what I've been saying. Which mostly that we need better training/testing for drivers and cyclists.
It's about 95 in 100 in my experience. No exaggeration. It's remarkable when a car comes to a complete stop at a four-way non-lighted intersection. Or when they travel no faster than the speed limit (this is slightly more common in my experience).
1 in 40 is really hard to believe unless you ignore rolling "stops" and speeding.
I'm not even counting all of those since I'm saying "and unsafe" as well. If a bike or car does a rolling stop without anyone around, I don't care. You are being illegal, but there nobody there. It completely changes if there are people around.