wolfchild

Talking and texting on your phone while driving is irresponsible.....Seriously. do you really consider it a hardship not to use your phone while driving ??....Me personally if I am driving and I hear my phone ringing I just ignore it and keep driving and check my phone and answer my calls and texts after I stop.

WhyFi

So what ???....we all have to be punished and have our choices limited because of few bad apples out there ???

Kapusta

Yes it would.

As would better visibility.

As would better infrastructure.

Darth Lefty 

You can tell it’s a slow day in the wars and the pandemic and the elections and the celebrity battery trials when they’re putting out bike editorials in the national newspaper

Daniel4

Those chances are never 100% or 0%. We still have to rely on the driver's awareness of his vehicle to look when and where he needs to. BUT when that doesn't happen, a pedestrian or a cyclist gets hit AND the only safety feature preventing death is for the occupants in the vehicle and none outside.

50PlusCycling

I remember getting my drivers license when I came to Japan, and how difficult it was.The written test was 200 questions, the driving test was quite hard, with every person failing on the first attempt. Not to mention the cost, which, for driving school, safety course, CPR certification, fees for the license and tests, added up to around $3000 USD.

But the process stressed safety over and over again, especially in relation to pedestrians and cyclists. In one of the training videos they made a skit about a man looking at his phone and then hitting a cyclist, and what you have to do if such a thing happens. In the driver’s handbook it shows a cartoon image of a driver handing over his life savings and bowing in apology after hitting someone with his car. In Japan drivers know what will happen if they hit a pedestrian or cyclist, and they know that any accident involving an injury is considered a serious crime. They also know that the larger vehicle is automatically considered at fault in any any accident. And they know that even if a pedestrian or cyclist runs through a red light and is killed by a driver, that driver will go to jail without exception, even if he was doing nothing wrong. Drivers are supposed to, by law, “expect the unexpected” when they operate a vehicle. Japan’s criminal justice system and jails are not something any Japanese wants to face.

Accidents are rare in Japan, I feel quite safe riding a bicycle here.

njkayaker

What about passengers? People riding in busses?

I provided a link to the history earlier.

livedarklions

So? The distracted driver of a large full size truck is still deadlier than the distracted driver in a small car. Why would we assume the attentiveness of large SUV drivers is any better than small vehicle drivers?

livedarklions

That's total nonsense. By that logic, cars that can go fast but have no brakes could be marketed because someone COULD manage to operate them safely.

Like it or not, transportation is a communal activity where your actions and equipment affect other people. It has to be regulated at the governmental level as the free-for-all, everybody solely responsible model is absolutely unworkable in an industrialized society.

Daniel4

Because distracted and bad driving isn't caused by just a few bad apples. It's a big problem that many jurisdictions had to write legislation specifically addressing it.

And those who claim to be responsible should pay attention to this survey finding.

Expedia Road Rage Report 2015

"... Nearly all Americans (97%) rate themselves as “careful” drivers, but feel that only 29% of fellow drivers merit the description."

viewfinder.expedia.com/news/expedia-2015-road-rage-report-texters-enrage-fellow-drivers-most-edging-tailgaters-and-left-lane-hogs-on-list-of-most-deplorable-driver-behaviors/amp/

msu2001la

This is exactly what I was trying to write earlier in this thread, but somehow my brain scrambled the words.

Daniel4

I'm sure the smart people at Google and Apple will find a way to make it work. The only problem is the will to get it started either at the executive level or the legislative level.

msu2001la

I can think of dozens of US cities that are relatively flat, high-population density and have climates on par with Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Paris, and continue to plan and build roadways that are primarily or exclusively for the use of automobiles. So, clearly those aren't actually reasons why US cities can't better accommodate biking (and walking).

So, I guess we're doing this so that we can continue supporting domestic energy and/or automobile industries? Seems weird, and not something I've ever heard come up in a public meeting about a planned roadway.

njkayaker

There needs to be consideration of this as part of any legislation. It's a mistake to expect known issues to magically solved in the future.

Apple phones now ask you if you are driving.

Sy Reene

Which of course is it's own distraction :-) How many drivers get in accidents trying to answer that question lol.

mschwett 

i wouldn’t go quite that far. there are 90+ million people living in the toronto, vancouver, seattle, portland, san francisco, los angeles, dc, new york, and boston metro areas. the weighted density is certainly lower than amsterdam on average, but not by so much that cycling and transit and walking aren’t viable ways to get around. wealth and education levels are also similar or higher. a lot of progress is being made in these places, and others will follow.

njkayaker

It's kicking problems down the road because "something must be done".

Daniel4

Engineers have overcome many obstacles and challenges in the past. This will be no different. Even the excuses are the same.

njkayaker

If it was so easy, they would have done it already. Failing to put basic thought into the obvious issues in a law is sloppy. There's no excuse to have a half-assed law.

Daniel4

Not the problem-solver are you? Where there's a will there's a way. And right now neither you nor the executives and their political lobbyists have the will. But we know that engineers will overcome this challenge too, like they have so many times in the past.

njkayaker

??? You want to defer the solution to the future. That's not "problem solving". It's "problem ignoring".

There is no reason for a half-assed law.

Daniel4

The former traffic commission of NYC, Janette Sadik-Khan, has a response to that when she implemented all those bike lanes and transformed dead-area parking into pedestrian malls amongst driver and residential protests.

Daniel4

I know of no city, town or village built completely on an incline. Even villages on hills have flat parts where the residences do their business. Every CBDs where I have been are on flat ground regardless if that city, town or village is known for its hilliness.

I had even started a thread a few years ago asking members to list hilly and inclined cities where they have bicycled. I looked at them on Google maps and did find a lot of bike trails and bike lanes in those places.

So again, where there's will, there's a way.

Daniel4

I know of no city, town or village built completely on an incline. Even villages on hills have flat parts where the residences do their business. Every CBDs where I have been are on flat ground regardless if that city, town or village is known for its hilliness.

I had even started a thread a few years ago asking members to list hilly and inclined cities where they have bicycled. I looked at them on Google maps and did find a lot of bike trails and bike lanes in those places.

So again, where there's will, there's a way.

homeless in ca.

Dangerous drivers are one side of the problem. The lack of secure bike lanes and safe crosswalks to mitigate the danger is another.

Building safer roads is absolutely necessary. But it's a long term objective that will cost a lot of money. It will take years to realize the practical benefits of engineering a safer, healthier, more sustainable and liveable urban environment.

In the meantime these proposals will run headfirst into special interests who want to keep taxes low and preserve the status quo. In simple technical terms our society treats dead children and injured cyclists as externalities. A cost of doing business that is borne by a third party.

Cyclists and others demanding safe infrastructure will be portrayed as a selfish minority who don't even pay road tax or follow the rules of the road. They want to tax Joe the plumber's pickup truck and Sally soccer mom's minivan to pay for their weird hobby. And most of them are tree hugging fanatics who want to force us to become vegetarians and eat bugs. That's what Fox News will say and what voters will believe when the issue comes to a vote.

In politics you have to control the narrative. The first priority should be to criminalize reckless and aggressive driving. Frame it as an issue of law and order and personal responsibility. Divorce yourselves from the image of tree hugging radicals who want to re-engineer society. Focus on establishing a basic principle that roads must be safe and accessible for everyone. A civil society can not tolerate bullies using their 7000 pound vehicles to intimidate and physically injure other road users.

That is the thin edge of the wedge. Money for infrastructure will come when society accepts that cyclists are people. That drivers have a legal and moral responsibility to respect the well being of other road users.

Politically the path to change is not the ballot box but changing public opinion.