Arthur Peabody

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/23/us/los-angeles-cyclists-bikes-car-culture-collision-activism.html

canklecat

Part of the problem with the attitudes of drivers is that cars are safer than ever -- for drivers and passengers. That hasn't reduced the danger to pedestrians and cyclists. AI collision avoidance will help, but may increase driver indifference toward personal responsibility for injuries caused by their vehicles.

There's almost nothing cyclists as groups can do on a bike to change driver attitudes. They have to make the changes in the laws. Gather at government offices en masse once a month rather than joyriding through town on the last Friday of every month.

The only things that will change the attitudes of many drivers is to change the laws:

• Increase prosecutions for vehicular assault, manslaughter and murder.
• Make it harder to get a license and harder to renew a license. It doesn't necessarily need to be more expensive, since that would disproportionately affect less wealthy drivers. Driving tests should be more demanding, more difficult, with more stringent practical testing of the ability to park, maneuver at normal and slow speeds, using objects representing pedestrians and cyclists. As I recall from the 1970s, testing in California was easy and my home state of Texas is even easier. People who can barely drive are licensed. They can't turn a corner without cutting across into the opposing lane. They can't park straight in, let alone parallel park. They can't figure out how to back out of a driveway or parking spot without taking a wide enough swath for a massive tanker ship to navigate. They can't judge speed or distance.
• Surveillance cameras should be more widespread, auto-generating citations for routine infractions such as blocking crosswalks, cutting diagonally to turn into opposing traffic lanes, tailgating, blowing through stop signs and traffic lights, etc.
• Law enforcement need to stop thinking of these incidents of striking pedestrians and cyclists as "accidents". Investigators should focus on determining negligence and liability, not on merely documenting something they're preconditioned to regard as unavoidable, unpreventable and "nobody's fault".
• Increase penalties for moving violations. Not just speeding but tailgating, cutting off other drivers, overtaking and passing unsafely, etc.

downhillmaster

Daniel4

Motorists who don't like bicycle infrastructure or generallly bicyclists on the road claim that anything done for cyclists are catering to only 5% of road users. If that percentage were correct, then any initiative to improve road safety would negatively impact 95% of road users.

A lot of pedestrians are motorists who aren't in their cars. So as a voting block, motorists are a mighty force that can defeat any government daring enough to make the bold move towards road safety.

Kontact 

Does your bicycle have a license plate registered with the state? How are you going to receive a photo ticket?



General thread comment: This is another case of cyclists making the false assumption that driver "attitude" is the root cause of collisions with bicycles.

genec

Sure, as long as they also determined that the stop light was actually functioning properly for cyclists. And that one need not actually put a foot down for a track stand stop. (I have yet to see a single car driver be forced to put a foot on pavement to indicate THEY are stopped...)

genec

You are right... driver attitude is the root cause of collisions, period.

Kontact 

When you say "you are right", and then post the opposite of what I said, is that because you are being sarcastic or you just aren't reading?


Attitude has little to do with collisions. Proficiency does.

I-Like-To-Bike

I NEVER saw anyone, anywhere, in/on any vehicle forced to put a foot on pavement to indicate he/she was stopped. Have often have YOU see that occur?

wphamilton

Driver attitudes that result in taking greater risks for vulnerable road users, or greater risks for themselves and other motor vehicles, would feasibly lead to more accidents. On that premise, @canklecat has a pretty good list of suggestions.

Whether that's embodied in "car culture" is hard to say. Maybe it's a broader cultural phenomena which is reflected in the way people drive. If so, the point of attack at traffic law enforcement probably wouldn't be the most effective way to address it.

canklecat

I doubt there's enough data to resolve that debate. Such data would require a very carefully designed questionnaire administered properly and applied to every driver in every relevant collision.

We all have plenty of anecdotes based on personal experience. The vast majority of drivers I encounter are fine, driving neutrally as expected, or sometimes being excessively polite -- the "You first, good sir!", "Nay, thou, dear gentleperson!" dance at stop signs, etc.

Most collisions and close calls I've experienced were due to inattentiveness, negligence rather than malice. That includes the driver who struck me in May and broke my shoulder (by the driver's own admission in the police report).

However I have experienced incidents involving unprovoked hostility and aggression, some of which I've recorded on video. Fortunately I've been able to de-escalate the near-physical confrontations. The rest I just ignore -- the brush-by passes, right hooks, etc., when the driver absolutely knew I was there because they were honking and finger spelling expletives.

So, sure, attitude is a factor. Whether it's statistically significant, nobody can say for certain because we don't have enough data. It certainly seems significant when you're the target.

Kontact 

Either someone is negligent, or they acted with intent. While we have seen the occasional example of someone purposely hurting a cyclist, it is logical leap to associate the majority of auto/cyclist collisions with attempted murder or intentional assault with a deadly weapon.

canklecat

No logical leap at all. In my itemized list in my first post I emphasized investigations to determine how the collisions occur. In some areas and with some law enforcement officers this may require a paradigm shift in thinking to eliminate the "nobody's fault" or "it's an accident" mentality.

Some collisions that injure or kill cyclists may indeed be unavoidable by human drivers with ordinary reflexes. But that should be determined by an appropriate investigation, not assumed or arrived at through inadequate investigations.

Another paradigm shift would be in laws regarding negligence. For now those are often categorized as "failure to control speed/handling" and similar charges, which may have little or no bearing on the effect on the cyclist or pedestrian who was injured or killed. In some cases the law doesn't consider the human being, only whether the operation of the vehicle failed to meet certain standards. In effect, the penalty to the driver is the same for damaging a street lamp as for killing a human being. Intent should be irrelevant in such cases, unless the prosecutor sees sufficient evidence to prosecute for manslaughter or murder rather than homicide due to negligence. But the default should be homicide due to negligence.

Kontact 

Your first post mentions investigations to determine negligence and liability. Intent to harm is neither of those, nor is it likely to be.

And the reason I keep bringing this up is that cyclists have an emotional and illogical tendency to conflate hate with collisions. This isn't helpful if you really want to make the roads safer, and is mainly an emotional bias that clouds investigation.

CAT7RDR

I did not read through all the comments. I am sure they are well intended and would be beneficial.

The problem as I see it is Hit-and-Runs are simply an act of evil. The internal monologue of a sociopath is, "It is only wrong if I get caught." Then, "I will lie my way out of it."

Sad to say but more people than we know are sociopaths equipped with 4,000 pound guns.

I ask the Almighty for protection before every ride.

genec

Only when requested by a cop, when I was riding a motorcycle. "You should put your foot down."

I-Like-To-Bike

Did you cower in fear at this brutality, or instead whip out your rule book and cite chapter and verse to him and relieve the stress caused by this LEO "offense"; perhaps you could have just laughed to yourself and went on your way after the light changed?

genec

No, I responded in a somewhat smarmy way and put my foot down... and said "like this?"

He then said "yes... now consider this a warning." And then he gave me back my license and got into his car.

I seem to get a few warnings here and there, and scant few tickets... I was once stopped by a cop for running three stop signs in a row on my bike... it was quite early, and still quiet for the beach area... He said "you know, the first one I ignored, the second one I took offense at, the third one was just too much." After a bit of discussion regarding my early morning trek, and why I had panniers on my bike... (was getting ready to tour), again I was released with a warning.

I was once pulled over on the interstate in Arizona... I was touring southern AZ and just outside of Tucson. (you might remember this as I have mentioned it before). I was pulled over by AZ patrol (I think they call them safety patrol... Highway Patrol to me). He pulled on his smokey bear hat and asked "Have you ever gotten a ticket in Arizona... 'cause you're about to get one..." Again, a bit of discussion, inquiring about my destination and where I had come from... was instructed to use the frontage road, and set on my way with a "good luck."

Time and time I have found that not being a complete dolt, and being a bit respectful, I tend to get warnings.

Last year I was pulled over for speeding in my wife's car... I couldn't even find the registration... told the officer that it was a new car to me and I really didn't realize how fast I was going... again, a warning... but no ticket.

So hardly "brutality." And I'd have to say some pretty darn good luck. (Jedi mind trick??? who knows... )

BTW... in the same area... my wife did get a ticket, in my old truck... for speeding. Sheesh.

squirtdad

that is not a logical conclusion at all. just like saying I saw 3 cyclist in pink lyrca, all cyclists wear pink lycra

Kontact 

I'm not sure what you mean. If 99% of cyclist collisions aren't due to intent, they are like your pink lycra.

The vast, vast majority of drivers that collide with cyclists didn't intend to hit anything - it is a pain to have collisions, regardless of whether you hate what you hit or not. What evidence is there connecting any important number of the 800 annual cyclist deaths with malice aforethought? If the number is "two or three", then intent is like pink lycra - an unimportantly small number. Move on to real causal factors and stop harping on this respect stuff.


People don't have to respect each other to use a road. They just need to follow the rules and act competently so they don't inconvenience themselves with fines, loss of priveleges insurance rate hikes or jail. People can give me the finger all day long if they do so from outside of 3 feet passing clearance.

squirtdad

Pretty sure I read your post differently than how it was meant to be understood is it vs it is apologies

Kontact 

Ah, yes. It should have read "is a logical leap", meaning fairly illogical. With the "a" missing I can see reading it as "logical". Sorry for the confusing typo.

KD5NRH

I've watched a motorcyclist put his head on the pavement to indicate that he was stopped and too distracted to put his foot down.

squirtdad

I didn't know they used clipless pedals also