bikesafeboston.comPosted Aug 1, 2014, 2:08 AM UTC
Passing on the right might be legal, but it's hella dangerous to try to pass an MBTA bus on the right.
It's dangerous just to pass a car on the right, especially near an intersection. Most people are not conditioned to check their mirrors before turning. Forget about it with a large vehicle which has a huge blind spot on that side.
[deleted]
I got my license in RI and basically all you had to do was pass the written exam (you didn't even need drivers ed unless you were under 18). Then the road test was literally to drive around the block and park at the DMV lot again. They didn't observe if you checked mirrors or signaled turns, just that you didn't use your phone and your hands were on the wheel at all times.
This explains a lot of the fuckery I witness from those with RI plates.
RI resident here, got my license in 2008.
RI: Any Rhode Island resident 18 years of age or older who has have never been issued a Rhode Island driver's license or if the license has been expired for more than five years, must apply for a driving instruction permit by taking the computerized knowledge exam. http://www.dmv.ri.gov/licenses/new/
MA: You must get a learner’s permit before you can apply for a new driver’s license. The permit allows you to learn and practice driving while accompanied by a licensed driver. Your Massachusetts learner’s permit will be valid for 2 years. http://www.dmv.org/ma-massachusetts/apply-license.php
For my driving test (taken at the Middletown, RI DMV) I was required to do a 3 point turn, drive in reverse for a period of time, navigate down a long steep hill with a speed limit of 25 w/ merging traffic and a few other things. It definitely wasn't as laidback and simple as you're describing.
Well that sheds some light on why I always keep my distance when I see RI tags.
You're not actually legally required to have a right mirror as a car. That said, I have one, and so do most drivers.
Most people are not conditioned to check their mirrors before turning.
Just a thought, maybe that's the problem.
not really, it's logic. if you come up to your turn, knowing and seeing that there is no possibility of a vehicle in front or beside you bc you're in the far right lane, no one's going to look ever
You could have put it in a less dickish way. Though, I feel like the original statement was avoiding responsibility too much.
The bigger point is not just check your mirrors, but be aware of your surroundings.
I check my mirrors as much as possible, because I always want to be aware of what's around me. I also check for places where I can't see/won't be able to see, and prepare for something unexpected to possibly come from that spot.
It's ridiculous, really, to pass on the right. ESPECIALLY if you're in an area with car-lined streets trying to avoid the door zone. Passing on the right means putting yourself directly in that door zone. I can't tell you how many bike commuters have zoomed by me on the right while I'm parallel parking (correctly, and with my blinker on). Terrifying. Biking is awesome. Making it unnecessarily dangerous is not. I get that our streets are not accommodating or friendly to bikers and I agree that it needs to change, but woof. Don't pass on the right. It just doesn't make sense.
Hella.
You're not in California anymore.
Please don't lump all of us Californians in with that crap... It's a big state, and most of us hate it just as much as you.
Norcal transplant here. There is nothing wrong with the word. There is, however, a lot wrong with 'stoked', 'gnar-gnar' (heard on a beach in SD), and 'like'.
That's just, like, your opinion man.
Yaaaa, wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwhat are you talkin' about?
Hah I understand. I lived in Northern California for a bit, but I know it isn't everywhere. A lot of these lames downvoting probably haven't even left the Northeast and don't know shit.
I feel like you're intentionally being a cock to try to get to 420 comment karma.
Considering the fact that I've lived in Washington, southern california, and massachusetts, I can tell you this.
You don't know shit about fuck.
I just downvote every time I see your username.
I've never even been to California but "hella" was the appropriate modifier.
Whether you're a biker or motorist...don't be a dick!!
Finally, a voice of reason
I bike and drive and I wish bikers would realize that cars cannot always see or brake as fast as bikes. I once hit a biker that blew through a red light when I had the green in a car.
Some bikers don't realize that a car can kill you if you take risks like that, whereas I didn't even get a scrape on my bumper when I hit that guy. Not that I'm unsympathetic but people need to also watch out for themselves.
I bike in Boston and I find it hard to stomach the fact that most bikers won't own up to the fact that they're often creating dangerous situations. Road rage aside, bikers need to realize that one mistake on their part (or on a driver's part) and they could be dead or seriously injured.
It infuriates me to see bikers looping around cars who are turning right, running red lights, and otherwise acting like complete jackasses. As someone who bikes and drives, bikers in Boston need to learn to bike defensively and take fewer risks. Drivers need to be more aware of bikers.
I think you've hit the nail on the head with this one. They always teach defensive driving in cars, so why does defensive driving go out the window on a bike?
Just to add: I've had bikers cut me off as I've crossed the street as a pedestrian. I've also had a mother with two toddlers on her bike blow through a red in front of me narrowly missing an accident with me. I just wish bikers would realize they're not invincible.
Bikers run reds and plow through crowded crosswalks pretty much daily in Kendall. Two of the lights are offset, so when the East light turns the bikers think it's safe to run the red but West is still green. I fear it's only a matter of time before I witness someone die on my commute.
Then we will have to look at one of those painted white bicycles on the sidewalk for years.
I 100% agree with what you said, I just wanted to add the following
I wish bikers would realize that cars cannot always see or brake as fast as bikes.
Along with this, I wish drivers would realize that bikes cannot brake that fast sometimes, either. I have had plenty of people cut me off while they were turning in front of me because they think "it's a bike, they're going slow" and I'm going around 23-25 mph.
I actually had someone tell me earlier this week when I brought up a similar story that it was my fault because I was a "speed hog", even though I was going under the speed limit and staying in my lane.
I strictly follow the laws on my bike and I still get road rage, near misses, etc. Tell me what's in it for me to continue? If it's damned if you do, damned if you don't, why should I care? If there's a pervasive and uncontrollable hatred towards bikes, what's the point?
I am always baffled by the venom in people's voices when talking about people who ride bikes.
We’ve been conditioned since infancy to ignore most of these fatalities, along with the behaviors that cause them. If you’re a typical American, your first experience of speeding was while strapped into a car seat, and you rode past half a dozen fatal accident scenes before speaking your first complete sentence. A lifetime of exposure has convinced us to normalize, dismiss or ignore most traffic violations, to the point where we routinely exceed the speed limit despite the knowledge that speeding causes more than 30% of all traffic fatalities.
This normalization is entirely a product of exposure, and that’s what makes bikes so comparatively frightening: we prefer the devil we know, even when it’s infinitely more bloodthirsty than the one we don’t.
That's a really great article, thanks.
This article hits the nail on the head. Its a really fantastic read and puts our cycling habits into perspective. Since reading it I have strived to become a model cyclist, and chastise fellow cyclists who break laws.
I posted this on a thread about a driver who intentionally ran someone off the road, but here it is again:
transportation/mobility is always a proxy for larger civil rights battles- especially in the states (e.g. rosa parks and the bus boycotts, or the american federal highway project and red-lining). If bikes become a legitimate form of transportation, it opens up more places to less economically advantaged people. The problem right now is that in the recent effort of making our transportation infrastructure more equitable, not only is it beginning to erode the lop-sided hierarchy that "wealthier" car owners currently enjoy on public ways, it is also a representation of the beginning of the end of our subsidization of car-centric sprawl.
People don't like losing power.
It's easy to tell who is most effected by this because they tend to refer to all cyclists as some kind of homogenous group who all behave the same - and are unwilling to admit that many motorists are just as likely to behave inappropriately.
Seriously? The people I know who ride bikes around the city (poorly) are on $1000+ bikes. Certainly not disadvantaged
so... you know people who ride poorly on $1000 bikes - I know people in the southern end of the city who ride on bikes they got from the city's free bike program. I also know people who drive poorly in $80,000 cars...
also - a $1000 bike is a nice bike - a $1000 car is a crap car. think about this - $300-400 gets you a decent bike that can get you around most of the city - the worst thing that could happen to your bike aside from a collision (if you do regular maintenance on your bike - and take advantage of all the free bike repair that various groups do around the city) is you get a flat - a new tube costs $5 and you can easily fix it yourself. a car is considerably more costly (you have to pay insurance, excise taxes, gas, parking, have a place to store it, something goes wrong - it can be hundreds or thousands of dollars to fix - especially if you have a used car, etc...) and - there are numerous barriers to obtaining a license. bikes also offer greater flexibility over public transportation.
anyway - the point is that I believe all this vitriol over bike rider behavior is because we're shifting away from the hegemony of cars on public ways. We're going to keep seeing these debates until we've figured out how to more equitably and safely accommodate multiple modes.
edit - some links for further reading:
http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/05/08/low-income-americans-walk-and-bike-to-work-the-most/
Come visit Bromley-Heath - you'll see a lot of young adults heading in and out on decidedly not $1000 bikes.
I believe that people from all walks of life ride bikes in the city. My point was that it's not a class issue at all
I didn't know that you knew every cyclist in Boston. How many college students ride bikes and can drop 1,000 bucks for it?
I wasn't saying I knew them all. I was saying that it's not a class issue, rich people ride bikes too. And on Comm Ave, most college students (or their parents) could.
This isn't supported by the data.
I don't think this is a class-warfare thing. I think people in cars are just generally angry people. They're angry at the other drivers around them who bend/break the rules. They're angry that they don't have an 8-lane highway from their doorstep to the office. They're angry that the price of gas is going up.
A bike is someone who can't fight back against a car so they're an open target. After all, bikers are all alike and bikers breaking the rules is sooooo much more common than cars breaking the rules, right? I need to give them a piece of my mind!
Actually as a pedestrian, I have no problem with 90% of cars and a huge problem with bikes. Let's see, unlike cars bikes: 1) Try to swerve around me rather than waiting for me to finish crossing in a crosswalk (and not when I've just started crossing, when I'm more than 50% through the crosswalk giving them plenty of time to stop) 2) Suddenly decide to speed down the sidewalk, veering among tourists and occasionally scraping me with their handlebars. 3) Take blind left hand turns on shared walk/bike paths in the left hand lane, cutting off a few fractions of a second for them but potentially hitting whoever happens to be walking or biking in the correct lane. It is not about class warfare, it is about bikers making the city unsafe for both cars and pedestrians.
[deleted]
i agree, everyone driving a car is an insane dickhead brainwashed by the man and everyone who rides a bike is a sensible good natured fellow.
Fuck you.
Bicycling is not some proxy for civil rights, and you're an entitled douchebag for suggesting that it is.
You're still trying to make this an issue of class struggle. What, no one can dislike bikes without hating the poor? Come on, you're pigeonholing your opponents.
It's more reasonable to assume that people see of lot of bikers run reds, and that angers them. Especially given you can so easily kill a bicyclist. It's not a class issue; it's an issue with the perception of safety.
I think when you perceive you follow all the traffic laws, and you perceive them as wantonly breaking any and all traffic laws with zero legal consequences and causing near accidents, you can get pretty pissed. I bike and drive, and I see some bikers doing some incredibly stupid fucking things that really piss me off and make us all look like douche bags, be it running reds or blocking crosswalks for no reason.
The sentiment of this comment could be reversed and be equally true. It still does not explain the malice.
People get mad when they perceive others breaking the rules and getting away with it.
See conservative venom against people on food stamps or other assistance, especially from other working poor, or against "illegal" immigrants, or against Obama for whatever it is he's accused of getting away with lately.
Do you drive in the city?
Not daily, but yes I do. I ride a bicycle to and from work everyday. I understand how dangerous behaviors by people on bikes are annoying and unnerving to drivers. I've been behind the wheel to experience it. I do not understand how this makes them deserving of the dehumanizing, "Biker-had-it-coming", language tossed around so casually by people who drive.
Because if somebody (whether it be a car, pedestrian, or biker) ignores the rules of the road that we all agree to follow and, for instance, blows a red light, and they get hit... ya, they kind of do have it coming. It's not like people are hating on people who actually ride responsibly.
I agree with you to a point, but if you read through the rest of this thread, I think you will find a large number of comments making general statements about dangerous things that bikers do. Sure, there are some who are making the distinction between people who ride responsibly and those who don't, but many people do not and its that kind of blanket hate that I find disturbing. Maybe its just the lens of the internet that makes it seem more prevalent, but I often feel that some drivers take my mere presence in the road as a personal afront.
Except cars have advantages the others don't: seatbelts, airbags, and tons of metal. Unless it's car-on-car, the driver is very likely to walk away without injury and it doesn't matter who broke the law.
For bikes, the focus on red lights is just a flamewar issue, stirring up anti-bike sentiment but not addressing real problems. The prime cause of bike accidents and injuries are drivers not looking before turning (called a left or right hook) and drivers opening their doors into traffic.
I even call into question red lights being 3rd on that list. Frequently the biker is being taken away in an ambulance (or body bag) and the driver is the only witness left to the crash. There have been documented cases of drivers lying to get out of culpability that were only later turned around via video evidence.
Jay walking is the most prevalent crime in boston
Might be legal, but it is also legal for me to honk at you for swerving in front of me at 1/2 the speed of traffic. You've created an emergency situation, I've honked.
I'm really sorry I swerved in front of you. I've honestly done that many times. Sometimes it's because I'm not paying attention. Others because I'm riding at a pace (same as driving at pace) and the person in front of me is doing 10 mph below me. You know that feeling when driving on the highway and suddenly switch lanes because of the person's slowness in front of you? Yea, it's exactly the same. Not a good behavior but when you're 100% focused on not dying it's hard to always be perfect. All of us our equal. Let's just do our thing and if an asshole does something shitty call them out. At the same time we should understand that sometimes people do shitty thing by accident or perceived necessity. Let us respect that too.
Example: Today while biking home this person clearly didn't see me while biking my afternoon commute. I was going down a hill and they simply pulled out and I nearly got hit doing 20mph. That could have killed me. Do I blame the driver? No, not really. They were focused on other things such as cars and peds and also like me were in a rush to get home.
Empathy is one of the greatest traits we can have. All I ask is you empathize with the person who bikes home from work and I can guarantee you I will try to empathize with the driver who is frustrated and just ready to get home.
I'm really sorry I swerved in front of you. I've honestly done that many times. Sometimes it's because I'm not paying attention. Others because I'm riding at a pace (same as driving at pace) and the person in front of me is doing 10 mph below me. You know that feeling when driving on the highway and suddenly switch lanes because of the person's slowness in front of you?
You mean cutting someone off? I'm pretty sure that is illegal or at the very least honk worthy.
Not a good behavior but when you're 100% focused on not dying it's hard to always be perfect. All of us our equal. Let's just do our thing and if an asshole does something shitty call them out.
While true I would say that swerving to dodge an obstacle in front of you without looking is just as dangerous as swerving a foot or two blindly into on coming traffic to do the same thing in a car(or a 2nd lane with traffic). While it does occasionally happen this happens far more often with bikers. As a biker myself I know exactly how shitty it feels getting back up to speed but for the love of god use your brakes. That is what they are there for. If something is suddenly in front of you taking up the lane and you don't have time to look in the car lane to see if it is clear then just slow down or stop.
Obviously stopping isn't always possible but in my experience observing other bikers from my own bike and observing other bikers from my car in most cases they could have stopped and been perfectly fine.
Empathy is one of the greatest traits we can have. All I ask is you empathize with the person who bikes home from work and I can guarantee you I will try to empathize with the driver who is frustrated and just ready to get home.
I would love to, but we simply are not on equal footing. If I fuck up and hit that cyclist because I wasn't paying attention, I get hauled off to jail for being a bad driver. And if a cyclist fucks up, and swerves into my car because he wasn't paying attention, I get hauled off to jail for being a bad driver. Sure, 6 months later after thousands of dollars in legal fees are paid and multiple court appearances are had, I may get off if the latter case, rather than the former case, took place, but why should an innocent party have to go through all of that? It doesn't happen in automobile vs. automobile incidents.
IMO, if cyclists want equal rights, they deserve equal responsibilities. I.E. no pandering to the "poor little cyclist". A cyclist who fucks up should be equivalent to a motorist who fucks up. As someone who has had their car crashed into by an out of control cyclist, resulting in damage, I feel I should have just as much recourse as a cyclist who is hit by a motorist. If it were up to me, cyclists would be required to be licensed, and subject to the same licensing procedures and responsibilities that motorists face.
Are you kidding? Go and read some news stories where cyclists are hit and sometimes killed by drivers, most of the time the driver isn't charged with anything.
Until they require a license and registration for bicycles, operating a car is a right that can be taken away and bicycling is not. Kids are legally allowed to bike on roads. Its our responsibility as drivers to not kill them while we borrow use of the road.
Until they require a license and registration for bicycles, operating a car is a right that can be taken away and bicycling is not.
And this is a problem which needs to be addressed.
If I fuck up and hit that cyclist because I wasn't paying attention, I get hauled off to jail for being a bad driver.
You don't read the news much, do you? Numerous cyclists have been killed in the area, a bunch of them hit and runs...and not a single driver has been charged or cited for a traffic violation.
Also, cut the crocodile tears. You're in a box, surrounded by passive and active safety devices that make it virtually guaranteed that, if you're following the city speed limit, you cannot die in a collision.
A cyclist who fucks up should be equivalent to a motorist who fucks up.
There's no different in legal liability.
As someone who has had their car crashed into by an out of control cyclist, resulting in damage, I feel I should have just as much recourse as a cyclist who is hit by a motorist.
You DO. The fact that you apparently didn't have any "recourse" tells me that the cyclist wasn't actually at fault, otherwise your insurance company would've gotten money from them or sued them.
And you know what we have to deal with? Bodily injuries that cause pain, disability, loss of income, death. And all the driver has to say is "I didn't see them" and they get off scott free. So don't whine about how you got a dented body panel and that means we should all feel sorry for you or it's the same thing.
If it were up to me, cyclists would be required to be licensed, and subject to the same licensing procedures and responsibilities that motorists face.
Good thing that it's not up to you, and that every time anyone has ever tried to pass a license-bicyclists piece of legislation, it's never passed. Good thing that almost every registration law/rule in the US has been struck from the books. Virtually nowhere in the world are cyclists required to be licensed or their bicycles registered to operate on the road.
So doing 10mph below your speed will kill you? Most retarded excuse for not slowing down...Lol@ 100%focussed on not dying...the many shitty bikers in cambridge sre focussed on going as fast as they can...
Mitch, if I ever see you in the real world I'm going to engage in a civic infraction all the way up your ass.
Promise?
A helmet saved my life in 2010. It's distressing to see so many people ride around the city without one. Careful out there, cyclists.
It's not distressing at all, because of the thousand or so people who end up in Boston ERs each year from being hit by cars, about 2% have any sort of head injury (we're talking even a mild concussion, from which recovery is basically "watch out for these danger signs, take it easy"), while many (40%? 60%? I forget which) have limb injuries - broken hands, wrists, arms, legs. Of that 2%, less than a quarter require any treatment. That's five people, in the entire city, all year.
Your helmet most definitely did not "save your life"; they're incapable of turning a life-ending head impact into a survivable one. Most people don't understand how bike helmets or head injuries "work", and they think that wearing one is a guarantee of some reduction of the severity of a head injury. This simply isn't the case.
Bike helmets work by permanent deformation (denting) of the foam underneath a hard plastic shell. No deformation? Helmet didn't do anything. They're tested for a single 12mph impact against a flat surface. That's the speed at which your head is moving if you were to, while standing, simply fall over. Helmet designs are not tested or validated beyond that one simple test; the rest is determined entirely by aesthetics/product design.
They are not tested to fail 'gracefully' if hit harder; they are not tested to provide any reduction in injury severity below that. This is why so many helmets show no damage after a hit, or fail by breaking apart. In both cases, the helmet didn't do anything for the person wearing it.
Brain trauma happens from three causes:
Helmets do not address any of these, even the "skater" style helmets. There are a few helmets that provide protection down along the temples and behind the ears, but they're extremely rare.
Helmets generally slightly reduce head injuries slightly, and they increase neck injuries.
And by the way: it's now been established that there has been substantial publication bias for helmet research over the last 30 years (translation for laypeople: it's popular to think helmets have some effect. this has led to the promotion of research which supports this conclusion, and the suppression of research which does not. Yes, this is a very common sort of thing in peer-reviewed scientific communities, and is studied quite a bit...)
Oh, my dear, you are so obviously cherrypicking an argument together that I'm going to have to hit you with the whole damn tree about traumatic brain injury.
Have you ever heard of a coup-countrecoup TBI? They are caused by direct impact to the skull. Turns out, your skull is not all that great at diffusing impact and all that energy instead transfers to your brain which literally smashes into the other side of the skull. Two for one!
Then you have closed brain injuries, which are often complicated by swelling that can lead to TBI. And open brain injuries, well, they're even nastier because if you're unlucky enough to have a cribform plate fracture your spinal fluid is going to start leaking out your nose. Basilar, depressed, diastatic are not so great either. But for funsies let's include them all as one "cause."
Then we have penetrating injuries, concussions, contusions, second impact and finally diffuse axonal injury (rotation of the skull, like you mention. it's basically shaken baby syndrome). Oh, let's not forget hypoxic or apoxic TBI!
But... that's at least 10 different causes for traumatic brain injury, not 3. Do you need me to put them into laypersons terms for you?
I love the anti-helmet people. My god could you crusade for a dumber thing?
Wear a fucking helmet. It's not difficult. Honestly what is the legitimate argument against it? There isn't one.
I love people who dismiss arguments simply because they think it's absurd. I also love people who think that when you point out the flaws in something, you're "anti".
Who needs the scientific method, when you've got personal incredulity?
You're several times more likely to get a head injury while driving than biking. Wear a fucking helmet in your car. It's not that difficult.
enlighten me... not trolling at all, I just want information. if helmets don't do stuff, why do construction workers wear helmets? why do soldiers wear helmets? Snowboarders? are they different types of helmets?
And your figure for head injuries (2%) is that among non-helmet wearers? cause if not couldn't that be explained by helmets reducing head injuries?
Because they're completely different helmets. A construction helmet is mostly a webbing and a hard plastic shell. Snowboarders are different in that I believe they can take more hits at slower paces.
Isn't a bike helmet just webbing and foam in a plastic shell?
Are you going to provide any source all this (2% etc) or ...
http://www.cityofboston.gov/news/uploads/16776_49_15_27.pdf
That may or may not be the version of the report which incorrectly claims the top cause of injury is red-light-running (it's not. Dooring is. Which hilariously, data later in the report says.) The error was corrected, but I don't have time to check if this is a corrected file.
I would say cite pages and actual sentences, but you are wrong.
And by the way: it's now been established that there has been substantial publication bias for helmet research over the last 30 years (translation for laypeople: it's popular to think helmets have some effect. this has led to the promotion of research which supports this conclusion, and the suppression of research which does not.
It's funny that you mention that evidence exists that helmets increase neck injuries, but then turn around and say that research don't have any effect has been suppressed. And secondly, any time anyone says "research shows X..." but you don't actually link the research, I assume either the evidence doesn't actually exist, or you haven't read the research. It takes all of about five seconds to find an article if you remember even one of the authors names and part of the title. Finally, are there some conflicting reports on helmet efficacy? Yes, no doubt. You can't exactly go around asking people to get in accidents and see how well they do with or without helmets, which only leaves the possibility of retrospective research. With retrospective research there are a lot of confounding variables which are hard to control for, such as (among many others) location (impact with cement or dirt?), speed at collision, cultural differences between countries (think Netherlands vs. USA). Do individuals not wearing a helmet die much more frequently in accidents? The data from USDOT says yes.
It takes all of about five seconds to find an article if you remember even one of the authors names and part of the title.
Takes five seconds for you to type in "helmet publication bias" instead of writing a long ad hominem rant:
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/elvik.pdf
It's funny that you mention that evidence exists that helmets increase neck injuries, but then turn around and say that research don't have any effect has been suppressed.
Funny how publication bias can exist for one claim, but not another, huh? Weird, huh? That never happens.
If a helmet breaks apart that is definitely not doing nothing, that is absorbing a tremendous amount of energy that otherwise would've been absorbed by your skull.
High density foam absorbs energy by deformation. Not by breaking apart.
So it doesn't take energy to break something?
Citations?
Check out page 12 tl; dr Cyclists who require emergency medical attention disproportionately do not wear helmets.
Further, the article you're probably referring to is very wrong. You're forgetting that helmets prevent you from smashing your skull open and spilling your brain onto the pavement, for example.
Check out page 12 tl; dr Cyclists who require emergency medical attention disproportionately do not wear helments.
Then you would expect that the people who show up in the ER to have a lot of head injuries, yet only 2% do, and only .5% require treatment for said injury.
Further, the article you're probably referring to is very wrong.
First hit for "bicycle helmet publication bias":
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/elvik.pdf
1.A re-analysis has been performed of a meta-analysis of the protective effects of bicycle helmets reported in Accident Analysis and Prevention (Attewell et al., 2001). The original analysis was found to be influenced by publication bias and time-trend bias that were not controlled for.
2.When these sources of bias are controlled for, the protective effects attributed to bicycle helmets become smaller than originally estimated.
3.When the analysis is updated by adding four new studies, the protective effects attributed to bicycle helmets are further reduced. According to the new studies, no overall effect of bicycle helmets could be found when injuries to head, face or neck are considered as a whole.
I've been arguing all day with idiots who don't understand the science, show immense faith in the original ancient study that generated the "85%" figure which as of 2013 was considered wrong and dropped by both NHSTA and the CDC...but won't read the papers that follow because they all dispute the results...and are just so absolutely CONVINCED that wearing a piece of rock-hard foam is a lifesaving device. And then don't believe that in an environment where everyone BELIEVES on faith that helmets work, there might be publication bias.
I'm done. Go do the research by yourself and argue with the wall.
[deleted]
The way they redid the meta-analysis seems kind of biased to me. I'm out of time for tonight, so I can't really say, though.
If you posted your evidence in your first post you might get better responses, however.
Your discussion style is exactly like mine from 2-4 years ago. It's uncanny.
I cannot believe you are trying to argue that helmets don't work.
On top of that, you are hinting at some type of pro-helmet conspiracy.
Personal incredulity is not an argument.
Second, I said there is publication bias: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21376924
I am not trying to argue with you.
Also, you stated that "your helmet most definitely did not "save your life." Is that not personal incredulity?
yeahhhh FUCK helmets
While this is true I would really like it if Bikers would check in the normal lane when shifting out of bike lanes to dodge obstacles. I cant even count the number of times that there is a bike lane and the biker is using it and all of a sudden they try to avoid a pot hole by jumping into the side of the normal lane right in front of my car. I then have to slam on the brakes because otherwise I am going to clip them. Just because you are legally allowed to enter the non-bike lane doesn't mean you can legally change lanes without looking or signalling. Not only is that extremely dangerous it is also most likely illegal.
I would also hold this to be true if you are taking up the shoulder or sides of the road. While not technically its own lane cars aren't expecting you to suddenly be in front of them going 1/2 the speed they are. Look and show intent before you leap.
shifting out of bike lanes to dodge and obstetrical
o_0 If I see that in front of me, I'll definitely try to give them some space, but I think maybe a live traffic lane is really the wrong place to do that.
This is what happens when you type long posts on a phone. Although I would mostly be impressed if they managed to pull it off.
Calling out bikers for illegal lane changes is interesting. I feel like this is one infraction (compared to red lights) where cars easily take "1st prize". Aren't Boston drivers notorious for cutting people off for absolutely no sensible reason? E.g. "Congrats dude, you gained 2 car lengths in stop-and-go traffic. You get a cookie".
Cars tend to be going close to the same speed though, which makes it not as dangerous.
*I know it is still dangerous either way.
Nope, still dangerous.
"Bikes tend to look before running red lights, which makes it not as dangerous".
I think that line of reasoning needs work.
[deleted]
Cars for the most part are criticized for not using turn signals. That is one of the things I brought up but it is the smaller point of the two issues. The biggest issue is that they aren't even looking when they go around something and move into the car's lane.
If I were to compare it to something that actually happens in cars it would be like someone merging onto a highway but being stuck behind a car accelerating terribly slow. When they are going 30mph they jump into the next lane to go around the slow guy. The biggest difference is that at the very least a car as mirrors. Even if they don't use a signal they are more likely to go around something when it is safe to do so.
While yes cars cut each other off a ton it tends to be at slower speeds or during rush hour traffic(excluding highways where almost everyone is in safe big metal boxes). At the very least everyone is going roughly the same speed. Bikers are cutting people off at a significantly lower speed without even using anything to see if it is safe while also being completely exposed to potential harm. That makes it far more dangerous.
Well then maybe they should fix up the bike lanes! I can tell you that it's impossible to ride from symphony to the Charles on mass ave without having to dodge potholes, litter, parked cars, and sometimes even segways (?!)
Yeah, at the very least get it clear of obstetricals.
I agree completely. I bike a lot myself mostly for exercise but a lot of the obstacles aren't really fixable. Someone opening their car door for instance is something that I see being dodged that can't really be removed. We probably could get the MBTA drivers to do a better job but somehow I doubt that we could remove that as an obstacle in our lifetime.
Even so having shitty roads isn't an excuse for not looking. That is like me dodging a large pothole into oncoming traffic without looking. The first response when seeing things that like should be to gauge if you have enough time for a large change, look to see if it is safe, and then change. Otherwise they should stop or slow down and go around carefully.
My biggest concern is the number of no look, life in god's hands, style lane changes that you see from bikers all the time.
Sudden obstacles I can understand, but several times one biker wanted to pass another and swerved out directly in front of me. I can't see my bumper but I would guess they were maybe a foot or two in front of it. WTF?
My one major concern is how people interpret "Passing on the right". If you are on a road with no bike lane, passing cars on the right is perfectly fine. But if I am ahead of you and put my right turn blinker on, that is no longer a passing situation. This is the same for drivers on a road where passing in the far lane is legal, you can't do it if someone is turning left.
I always check for bikers getting ready to ignore my signaling and blow by me on the right despite the fact that I've clearly indicated I'm turning because they're people and i don't want to hurt anyone. That doesn't make it "right" though.
So I bike a lot in Boston, and I agree 100%- when someone uses a blinker to tell me they're turning right, I'll come to a stop and let them go.
But then there are the 5-10% of drivers who seem to think that a blinker is completely optional. Those people can burn in hell- I've almost been sideswiped more times than I can count because I was passing someone on the right and they decided to turn without using a blinker. That's one of the few things that'll have me hurling expletives at a driver in the city.
So, turning the blinker on is good and really appreciated!
But one tip, I believe in MA you are supposed to treat the bike lane like another lane of traffic. Technically a car is supposed to merge into it before turning right. And with that comes the idea of yielding to vehicles (bikes) already in this lane of travel. It's 100% correct for a biker to expect to be able to pass you if you aren't in the bike lane.
EDIT: I did a little searching, and actually I'm not sure you are supposed to merge first; that said according to this video you are still supposed to yield to cyclists even if they are behind you! http://youtu.be/hhkEb0ie7Cg?t=4m40s
But one tip, I believe in MA you are supposed to treat the bike lane like another lane of traffic. Technically a car is supposed to merge into it before turning right.
I totally did not know this. Thanks!
The law regarding right hooks is worded like so:
No person operating a vehicle that overtakes and passes a bicyclist proceeding in the same direction shall make a right turn at an intersection or driveway unless the turn can be made at a safe distance and at a reasonable and proper speed.
Since the law says "vehicle that overtakes and passes," it makes it sound like bicyclists who come into a line of cars already stopped at a light have some obligation to make sure that they don't crash into a car turning right, or about to turn right with no awareness that a bicycle has come along (potentially riding in their blind spot) since they didn't pass it. It also makes it sound like in your case, the bicyclist would be in the wrong so long as you signaled and had not recently passed them. I'm not sure if a bicycle lane makes a difference in this case or not.
But if I am ahead of you and put my right turn blinker on, that is no longer a passing situation.
In that case you should move over into the bike lane with your blinker on, otherwise it becomes a weird guessing game where I'm not sure if you're waiting for me to go past or not (since a lot of drivers will expecting the bike to go) and I would prefer to maintain momentum if possible.
For roads with bike Lanes I 100% agree, but I was explicitly referring to the many roads in Boston still lacking that infrastructure.
But if I am ahead of you and put my right turn blinker on, that is no longer a passing situation.
Haha, yeah, it doesn't work that way. Putting on yah blinkah doesn't give you right of way.
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter89/Section4A
Section 4A. When any way has been divided into lanes, the driver of a vehicle shall so drive that the vehicle shall be entirely within a single lane, and he shall not move from the lane in which he is driving until he has first ascertained if such movement can be made with safety.
Translation: it is the responsibility of anyone changing lanes to make sure it's safe to do so. Not "put on yah blinkah and then it's the fault of that mohrahn that slams inta ya from behind"
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter90/Section14
When turning to the right, an operator shall do so in the lane of traffic nearest to the right-hand side of the roadway and as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of roadway. No person operating a vehicle that overtakes and passes a bicyclist proceeding in the same direction shall make a right turn at an intersection or driveway unless the turn can be made at a safe distance from the bicyclist at a speed that is reasonable and proper."
Translation: you should be close enough to the curb such that you cannot be passed, and if a cyclist is approaching, you can't just throw on your blinker and cut them off if they don't have reasonable and proper distance / time to stop.
This is the same for drivers on a road where passing in the far lane is legal, you can't do it if someone is turning left.
There is no situation where turning from the "far lane" is legal but the inside lane is not also a turning lane.
You seriously need to go read the driver's manual. You're being corrected on the law by a cyclist...
Before being a smug asshole maybe you should read the post. He is talking about when there is no bike lane meaning the bike should be taking the full lane. If the car in front of the bike signals a right turn then the bike should not be then passing on the right. That would be absolutely stupid.
Stop giving the rest of us cyclists a bad name with this holier-than-thou bullshit.
There are two scenarios being discussed, one of which you have described. Both are addressed.
Read this until you understand it:
"When turning to the right, an operator shall do so in the lane of traffic nearest to the right-hand side of the roadway and as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of roadway."
Read this as well:
"No person operating a vehicle that overtakes and passes a bicyclist proceeding in the same direction shall make a right turn at an intersection or driveway unless the turn can be made at a safe distance from the bicyclist at a speed that is reasonable and proper."
Niether of these quotes address what i said.
Quote 1 refers to roads with bike lanes which i am not doing.
Quote 2 refers to specifically to "a vehicle that overtakes and passes a bicyclist". I never said i was passing a bicyclist then taking a hard right. I said i was ahead of the cyclist to begin with, using my blinker as expected, and taking a right.
Maybe you should read your own post until you understand it...
I'll ignore the self-righteous tone of your post and try to point out the error of your response.
To quote my post:
If you are on a road with no bike lane
Everything you cited has to do with roads with bike lanes, which is not what i was referring to. If it has a bike lane, you are completely correct that the cyclist has the right of way and i am required to wait until they are clear. If there is no bike lane, and I put my blinker on with ample time for the cyclist behind me to stop, they are supposed to stop as any other traffic would.
Again, I'd like to point you to this safety video put out by the Boston police: http://youtu.be/hhkEb0ie7Cg?t=4m40s
@ 5:20 your issue is clearly addressed. Bicyclists are allowed to ride to the right of traffic, So even drivers that are stopped and waiting to turn right must yield to bicyclists.
"Everything you cited has to do with roads with bike lanes"
Nope. Read again.
"When turning to the right, an operator shall do so in the lane of traffic nearest to the right-hand side of the roadway and as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of roadway."
If there is no bike lane, and I put my blinker on with ample time for the cyclist behind me to stop, they are supposed to stop as any other traffic would.
Nope.
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter89/Section4A
Section 4A. When any way has been divided into lanes, the driver of a vehicle shall so drive that the vehicle shall be entirely within a single lane, and he shall not move from the lane in which he is driving until he has first ascertained if such movement can be made with safety.
If another road user is coming up behind you faster than you, and you put on your turn signal and move into the lane in front of them and they rear end you, you are at fault. It does not matter if they're on a bicycle or in a car.
Section 4A. When any way has been divided into lanes
What about the fact that i'm talking about roads with a single lane are you not understanding?
If you get rear ended by another vehicle, that other vehicle is at fault 100% of the time. Same rule applies to bicycles.
Doesn't everyone yell and honk at everyone else? Drivers yell & honk at other drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Bicyclists yell at drivers and pedestrians. Pedestrians yell at bicyclists and drivers. Why? Because the streets of Boston are a goddamn clusterfuck. The layouts make no fucking sense, the congestion is horrendous, it's far too easy to end up in a lane where you're forced to either make a turn you don't want or miss the turn you do want. With all this it's inevitable that people are going to get irritable as hell and take it out on everyone around them. And break a few rules of the road, either by accident or out or rage/frustration. Not that this is necessarily an excuse, but it's not surprising. I try to avoid all this by taking the T - which is also often a clusterfuck, but at least I can try to relax with a book or nap in relative safety and let someone else deal with the actual driving.
It's because everyone is a selfish asshole. The one time you're nice to one person, there's 10 other people who exploit your kindness. This is how nice people turn into selfish assholes, because they decide to not become exploited again.
"I will cut off this other person because I mostly have enough space to pull it off and it benefits me"
--Every Boston-area driver
It's also because we assume everyone else is a selfish asshole too. "I will cut this guy off because I mostly have enough space, but also because I know nobody else will let me in if I signal and wait."
On top of that the laws make no fucking sense. You can't bike on sidewalks except when you can. There is no law saying you can't bike in a crosswalks, it was just assumed no one would ever be that big of an asshole, or that it would be physically impossible to do that with a car. Red lights are completely unenforced so new bikers think they are optional. And a bike lane on the right is just fucking stupid.
Add to that everyone being in a hurry and driving aggressively and stir.
You'd think a government would have made the roads better.
Doesn't everyone yell and honk at everyone else? Drivers yell & honk at other drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Bicyclists yell at drivers and pedestrians. Pedestrians yell at bicyclists and drivers
This is true pretty much everywhere. In fact, I feel safer riding my bike in Boston than I do in many of the other places I have ridden (Philadelphia, NYC, Richmond VA)
People are just assholes on both sides.
Ahhh, Josh Zisson, the endlessly self-promotional "bicycle lawyer" who doesn't understand the law.
From that page:
"Now, the next important question: can cars be in the bike lane? Answer: NO!"
Correct answer: Yes. For the purposes of making a right turn (turns are ALWAYS made from the lane closest to the direction you are turning), pulling into a parking space, or (for taxis only) unloading passengers.
Protip, Josh: less time on twitter and TV, more time learning the law.
Oh hey, Josh Zisson here.
I suppose I was a bit inexact with my language there, but I can assure you, I understand the law quite well. My intention was to point out that cars are not permitted to travel in the bike lane—a logical point to make, given that the original question was whether bikes can travel outside of them.
I am, of course, aware that cars are allowed to enter bike lanes when parking/turning right/etc., and I certainly did not mean to imply that they're not. Had I been under that impression when I wrote the post, you'd think I would have followed the line you quoted with something like "the bike lane is legally considered molten lava for cars, and they may never enter it for any reason (otherwise they're out)."
You're nitpicking, and that's to be expected (this is the internet, after all), but don't try and use that to question my understanding of the law. It's childish.
Also: you saw me on TV? I'm flattered!
Does anyone know the actual law for making a right turn from a vehicle lane across a bike lane? I drive and bike and I'm not actually sure. I know some states require the car to merge into the bike lane, but I'm not sure about MA. It seems like it would be safer and prevent a lot of right hooks.
However the most common reason for cars to be in the bike lanes is to make a quick stop for a coffee at dunks.
I wrote about that here.
In the event that the driver did not pass the cyclist immediately before turning right, the driver is still likely at fault for failing to yield to the cyclist (who has right of way when going straight) before turning.
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter90/Section14
When turning to the right, an operator shall do so in the lane of traffic nearest to the right-hand side of the roadway and as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of roadway.
But apparently Josh Zisson has a law degree and is able to suss out meaning in that law that I'm unaware of.
Further:
No person operating a vehicle that overtakes and passes a bicyclist proceeding in the same direction shall make a right turn at an intersection or driveway unless the turn can be made at a safe distance from the bicyclist at a speed that is reasonable and proper.
Driver/pedestrian here: bikes are still required to stop at any crosswalk where a car would also be required to stop (that is, an un-signaled crosswalk with someone in it, or a signaled crosswalk with the 'walk' signal lit and people walking). 90% of you don't, and it causes a lot of people (myself, little old ladies) to lose respect for cyclists. The other day on Beacon St in Somerville, I stopped my car to let someone cross, and they had to wait for 7 bikes to zoom by. Unacceptable.
this the one by whole foods? the blinking yellow that turns red when the button is pressed? Every time I use that signal some asshole cruises by while I'm in the middle of the crosswalk at 35mph. Every time!
Actually, the un-signaled one by the Walgreens. I know the one you're talking about though, by Thirsty Scholar. People get confused because it's a blinking yellow, then it's solid yellow for about a second or two, then red.
From a bike's perspective, that whole area is a death zone. I am riding my brakes going past that Walgreens because of the number of close calls with cars turning in/out of that parking lot.
As far as I know I am the only biker who has ever stopped at that red.
But in fairness, I think I blew through it in my car when I first moved here because WTF kind of light is that. Same with the crazy blinking inter-otarty-section thing by Davis.
As far as I know I am the only biker who has ever stopped at that red.
I stop at it. Now there's two of us.
Ha! I stop at that red light. I once got honked at by a landscaping truck behind me that was driving in the bike lane (it was an amazingly tight squeeze). He wanted me to run the light so he could do a right on red.
Pedestrian here as well - I have less fear playing chicken with oncoming bikes than I do oncoming cars. If I gave a car enough time to stop, a bike rider from the same distance certainly has the same ability to stop.
I walk through the pedestrian controlled lights at 6th st and Binney in cambridge often - even when a line of cars are stopped, bikes almost always fly by.
Dear motorists, how many of you broke the speed limit today?
[deleted]
Leave MBTA bus drivers alone. They have to deal with all the same traffic shit you have to deal with. But for 8-10 hours 5 days a week. On top of that they have to deal with passengers. Leave em alone!
i guess since we are all just accepting 100% anecdotal evidence, that means absolutely nothing, ill throw in my two cents.
i have driven cars, box trucks, or my bicycle on a daily basis the past five years in boston.
pedestrians are idiots because they refuse to use crosswalks that are a whopping 25 feet away in either direction, or even more infuriating, see me coming on my bicycle and still step right out.
cars are a close second because you people literally never use turn signals/warning lights. i have no idea what is in the water up here that causes people the inability to flick a lever up or down. you literally dont even need to take your goddamned hands of the wheel.
(As a cyclist) bikes are minorly annoying because sometimes they run redlights i guess? My main qualm is when im waiting at a light and someone zooms in front of me for some reason. you queue up behind me at a bike lane, you fools. its not an open invitation to park your slow-ass wal mart rigid mountain bikes in front of me. this just causes me agony trying to ride around you while you clumsily attempt to accelerate to 10mph only to once again pull in front of me at the next goddamned light.
i mean when it boils down to it, barely anyone has been personally victimized by a cyclist, so it basically just boils down to "wahhh how come they are allowed to do it, waaaaaaah".
edit: clarification
Yeah. I'd call pedestrians the real idiots. People who don't drive or ride bikes have no clue. They just jut out behind cars expecting to be visible. Don't even check both directions when crossing. Or you got the runners who just can't stop at intersections and feel it necessary to jet out instead. Cars next up. I'm starting to think cars in Mass. don't come with turn signals. Bikes are just self righteous douchebags cause all they do is preach about their rights as they break every law. After promptly explaining how that's not them, that's other bikers of course.
Are we not legally allowed to yell?
I mean, of course... but you shouldn't yell at someone who is doing something legal and just looking out for their saftey. I get honked at all the time for "not riding close enough to the right." You're damn right I don. I've see 4 people get doored by cars in front of me. I'll take the honk over the serious injury but I'd rather have neither!
Wow, it only took a few days to forget the biker that was run over while following the law and resume the mindless bike-hate fest.
There are ahitty cyclists and shitty drivers both. But here's the reality of it, whatever the rules are, when you are a pedestrian or a cyclist, you have to respect the fact that cars are large heavy metal machines that could snap your bones like twigs.
I bike a lot in Somerville, and it can be frustrating to deal with asshole drivers, and you should pass when it's SAFE to do so, but when you start acting like your entitled to leave the bike lane whenever your trip demands it without looking and respecting auto traffic, you're gonna get hit. And if you're an asshole to cars, you're gonna get hit and no ones really gonna care.
Just be careful. That's my main point.
Am I the only person who doesn't care if a biker goes through a red light as long as they do it responsibly?
I don't care if they do it responsibly, but most red lights are not responsible to run.
Its one thing if a single cyclist does it. But if a squadron of 12 of them do it, its a different story.
Not if they honestly don't interfere with anyone, though.
Are cyclists legally allowed to blow through every red light at major intersections after looking both ways?
My ride home every night is spent watching these people break laws and put many people in danger.
What's also funny of them have GoPro cameras to protect themselves, but I would bet that they "malfunction" if they caused an accident.
Dude I feel you up to a point.
I don't know where you live, but around Roxbury, I see cars blow through red lights going 35-40mph daily.
It's a problem with EVERYONE.
I don't think cyclists are putting more people in danger than cars though..
This is an apples to oranges comparison. Im not going to dig through stats, but rather give a real world example from someone who drives between Cambridge and Boston 5-7 days/week. Granted, there are probably 100x more cars on the road than bikes.
I just see it happen every single day and quite often have an "oh shit" moment where I think that if it was 10 seconds before/after, I could have killed someone who was riding recklessly.
Boston drivers are assholes, but we admit it. ALL and I mean ALL of my bicyclist friends claim to follow every rule in the book. None of them will just admit to being a dick sometimes. It's the holier than thou mentality that annoys me.
The plural of anecdote is not data.
welcome to any conversation about bikes on the road
He said it wasn't statistical. You can go back to teaching your highschool science class now.
Maybe they do follow the rules? Maybe it's only certain demographics of bikers break the rules? Perhaps you're overly focused on bikes and fail to cross that with drivers routinely breaking the law?
Two wrongs don't make a right, though. If I'm driving along and accidently hit a biker because they blew through a red light, I'm going to feel really shitty.
If I'm biking (or walking) along and am hit by a car blowing through a red light, I'm going to feel pretty shitty too.
Once again, a problem with everyone.
Also, you could replace bike with "a person". Plenty of people who decide they want to cross the street nowhere near a sidewalk.
We all need to be a little safer out there. If everybody looked out for each other instead of themselves, there would be less accidents in this world.
No yeah, I got what you were saying and wasn't necessarily disagreeing. Just speaking from personal experience, I'm always extra leary going through green lights, keeping an eye out for anyone or anything trying to dart across.
So what is your point then? Yes, there are people who break laws in cars. There are also people who break laws on bicycles. It doesn't make either one better than the other.
[deleted]
Maybe not but if a biker jumped in front of me I would likely swerve into on coming traffic to avoid them if I had to. There is only so much you can do to override that instinct as well. So while cars are more dangerous in general a biker running a red light could put 2 cars worth of people in danger in addition to themselves.
Absolutely this.
Ok honestly the incidence of bikes going through reds (not sure about "blowing" through them) is WAY higher than that of cars doing the same, pretty universally. A lot of it is going through the red not just right after it turned. People are usually measured and cautious about it, but still not sure if I agree
I've seen cars run the red a second or two after it changes. Is that what you mean? I see this in less than 1:100 cars.
When I bike to work, at least 1/4 of the bikers around me will run every red, though I've seen up to 100% of those around me do this. Not just right before or after it changes, sometimes whenever. They'll perceive a lull in the heavy traffic and go for it.
It's hardly equivalent. Though I agree bikers are more likely putting themselves in danger, though I suppose a driver dodging a red light runner could lose control and his pedestrians.
Cars dont blow through lights in cambridge though..many cyclists do
They do blow through lights in Cambridge, but not nearly as many as cyclists do.
If you honestly believe this then you need to seek help
Lived here for four years...seen maybe ten cars do that. See ten bikes do it everyday...and I am a biker..your self righteous ass needs to seek help
I'v biked and driven in Boston for the last 15 years. You cannot seriously be arguing that more drivers run completely 100% red lights than bikers. That's a joke and you know it.
Kendall Sq by Meadhall. Bikers LOVE to blow through Red Lights.
Edit: And for some reason they don't like it when I have the crosswalk light and I walk in front of them and they have to swerve out of the way. Special snowflakes don't like to obey even crosswalk lights.
That's a dickish way to put it, but you're right.
Honestly, I want to put a GoPro on my bike just to record all the folks who run red lights on Comm Ave in the morning. Maybe I am just a self hating cyclist but I definitely see exponentially more cyclists run reds than I see cars do it so I don't really know why cyclists make that argument.
It's not even all dumbass young kids. I see people who are clearly >30, decked out in their cycling gear, clipped in just fly through lights. I feel like they must know the laws.
Shit last week, I'm at the corner of Comm Ave and Pleasant St waiting at the red light. Some woman starts to cross the street in the crosswalk. She is about two feet into the road when a dude on a bicycle pulls around me on the right and nearly collides with her. He almost flips over his handle bars braking so suddenly and I'm sure just crushed the shit out of his junk on the middle bar of his bike. I said something snarky like, 'dude the light is red' and he gets back on his bicycle....and rides through the light.
I feel like so many people get a bike and have no idea what to do with it on the road. Then they see folks run through lights and they think it's okay that they run lights and that just perpetuates this shit. I think it was u/Mitch_from_Boston who suggested a cycling license in a thread a few days ago. I really wish there was some sort of basic training/etiquette class required before you got on a bike but that's like impossible to enforce at this point in time.
As a cyclist, I hate a good 75% of other cyclists I encounter. I really wish it wasn't like that.
It's nice to see someone else recognize that this is a two way street and a problem with both cyclists and drivers. Cyclists need to start respecting the rules of the road and not putting themselves in dangerous situations. For instance, I don't understand what planet many cyclists are on when they decide to swerve around a car that is backing into a parking spot without even looking to see what's in the car line. Or when a cyclist decides to pass a car on the right that has their blinker on. Whether or not that's legal shouldn't matter. As a cyclist you should recognize that one wrong move and you could easily be killed. Bike defensively.
As for drivers, they need to pay more f-ing attention. Don't just assume that there's nobody immediately to your right when you make a turn. Create a little more space for cyclists when they're cruising down the street. Don't use the bike line as a "pre-turning" lane.
It goes both ways.
I feel for you guys who have to contend with the reputation generated by shitheads. Sadly, it seems that the idiots are not the minority.
FTFY
Ha. It is really easy to get into an us-vs-them mindset. At the end of the day, I just wish pedestrians, motorists and cyclists could all unite against the true scourge - those vespa/scooter things.
yeah. I usually mutter "I hate people" to myself at least once a day.
Also, I have a GoPro on my handlebars. It's worth it.
What kind of hipster hates Vespas!?
No, no, I think we can all get together on this one: Fuck the rollerbladers.
Can we please cut this tribal bullshit and just say "Hey, we're all humans. We all do stupid shit." I just hate this Us vs Them mentality. We are all going to the next place in our life if by car, bike foot, skateboard or boat.
Also, to directly address your statement, please show me a statistic for biker induced accidents in Boston vs car/truck accidents in Boston. I would love if you showed me how dangerous bikes are for the local residents. I'm dead serious too. Show me that bikes are more dangerous then cars in the Boston area and I will stop riding my bike today.
Check out page 16 of this. Bike behavior causes most accidents involving bicycles in Boston. A huge amount involve bicycles blowing lights.
It's hard to say whether or not cars overall contribute to more accidents per mile, but they certainly involve fewer fatalities per 100 million miles.
Car fatalities per 100 million miles: 1.1.
Someone's argument for riding a bicycle, including the statement that bicycles involve 6.9 deaths per 100 million miles.
The argument for bicycling is that it's healthier, and so overall it extends life. However, I would have to say that this site has really fuzzy statistics.
However, it seems to be harder to find out how many people are killed by cyclists. In the UK, fewer are killed but as many are injured.
Also, by far the majority of people who die in car accidents are people in the cars. The greatest danger is always to the occupant of the vehicle, it seems. It's not sexy, because people can only blame themselves, but it's a more serious public health issue.
Okay, I'll give you that 54% of accidents involving bikes are the bikers fault. Is that "most"? Yes, it's a majority. I will also give you that 38% were the bikers running lights. Is that a "huge amount"? Well that's a bit of a stretch but I'll give you it's high and I wish it weren't.
However all these stats and the rest of your reports only show that biking is very dangerous to the biker. That's not shocking in the slightest. What people always throw out is how dangerous biking is to other people. That's a stat that is still missing and even your London article showed only about 20 peds being seriously injured a year. In a city that size that's a fairly minor statistic and not some great epidemic of bike mayhem. In that same article it shows only a single pedestrian was killed by a cyclist meanwhile 253 were killed by cars.
So what can we conclude? 1) Biking is dangerous for the biker. 2)The majority of time a biker gets injured or killed its a result of his own action. Both these conclusions I accept but yet none of this justifies the vitral thrown at cyclists from drivers who are still responsible for more accidents and injuries than cyclists are. Unless people want to argue that you yell at me, honk at me, throw bottles at me, curse at me, all in the name of my personal safety. All I asked for was an end to this us vs them mentality. Is that too much to ask?
Edit: I also want to thank you for actually taking the time to provide research from legit sources and engage in actual discourse rather then just mud slinging.
It's actually 44% if you including dooring and 2 other types of accident. They screwed up the statistics.
The report doesn't really say how dangerous biking is to pedestrians, unfortunately. It doesn't even look at the issue.
There are also probably fewer bicyclists than cars in London.
You are not looking at proportion, but only raw numbers. If drivers often have problems caused by the cyclist when they deal with cyclists, that can still color their perceptions. There are also more drivers than cyclists. If you don't acknowledge proportionality in this case, you might look pro-bike biased.
You're welcome.
I'm not against ending the us vs. them mentality, but that doesn't mean that there should not be criticism. That's why I would rather post sources and accurately evaluate them.
Old guy stepped onto the curb and was hit by a bicyclist and
died last yearin 2009 near Church Park Apts on Mass Ave.Stop thinking bikers are at the bottom of the food chain.
edit - story found - from u/BadassMotherchugger
That happened in 2009, not last year. So one time in the last 5 years. And the dude stepped off the curb and wasn't in a crosswalk, it's not like the bike refused to stop for him and ran into him. I can't count how many times I've had to slam my breaks suddenly when a pedestrian decides to stop off the sidewalk into the bike lane without looking.
The point u/Padiddle is making is not that bikes never hurt or kill anybody, but that the statistic is almost negligible when compared with cars. Let's look at the month of July, for example. I can find 2 stories of hit and runs by cars where the victims died, and at least one more story of an accident where a pedestrian was killed but the driver stayed on the scene, and that's just within the city of Boston.
This website shows car crash stats until 2011. Since they don't go past 2011, I can't get an exact number for car-caused pedestrian fatalities from 2009-2014, but at least from 2009-2011, 17 people in the city of Boston were killed by cars.
So you tell me which form of transportation is more dangerous.
I completely agree!
I personally make plenty of room for bikers when I'm driving in the city. I don't pass until I can give them half a car lane's worth of space. I get honked at from people behind me. Don't care. Rather wouldn't kill someone.
I like to think bikers make the same consideration for everyone else.
I also posted a bunch of stats that show a slightly different figures.
Do you really think that is the only instance, or is it more likely that people aren't keeping track?
And? Two 27 year olds were killed by a driver running a red light and said driver has yet to be charged. This proves u/padiddle's point that we all do stupid shit. I mean hey, [the front page of r/news](http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/2cboyv/a_judge_condemned_motorists_who_use_mobiles_while/) is about a driver using two phones simultaneously and killing people. Being a shitty person isn't exclusive to bikers.
Anecdotal evidence is great and all, but statistics are what tell the full story. For every story you find about a biker killing a pedestrian I'll find 6 the other way. But again, the "us vs them" stuff is SO stupid. I'm amazed that we can go from sitting in traffic cursing out other drivers to defending all drivers in a heartbeat. I'm also shocked at how bikers can act like all bicyclists are infallible. There are a lot of dumb people out there on every form of transportation.
Violating traffic rules and creating safety hazards is absolutely wrong. I avoid it myself, as do the other bicycle commuters I know. We understand that the laws are there to protect everyone. Please don't stereotype a group by the actions of a few (just as we avoid considering all car users homocidal maniacs on the basis of a few bad apples).
I sincerely hope that you're being honest and appreciate if you are but these arguments are always filled with cyclists characterizing car users as homicidal maniacs. It would be nice if it were actually true that you (collectively) avoid stereotyping.
I recognize that not everyone on a bike breaks the rules and create safety hazards but it happens a lot. I see it everyday. I can't speak for everyone but many of us are only criticizing those that break the rules, of which there are many. Stereotyping car drivers doesn't validate the dangerous behaviors of any other mode of transportation.
Thank you to those that don't do any of the above.
P.S. I have a bike. I even ride it sometimes, on the road, with cars. I understand the concerns. Running reds or bullying pedestrians in a legal crosswalk does nothing to alleviate those concerns.
Given that, for example, my gf drives and I harbor no murderous suspicions of her, I rather do think I'm sincere about not stereotyping.
I back those who encourage everyone, including cyclers, to follow the laws.
I don't think we have an argument here.
I'm hopping on your comment because it's at the top, and I really want to try and make a point that I didn't really see in here yet. I'm a cyclist who's on the road ~100 miles a week. I do about 30/day, whenever it's not raining.
There are many cyclists who feel the same way as you do right now, and I consider myself one who actively enforces the rules when I can. I say when I can because I purposefully take separated bike paths as much as possible (mainly the esplanade) to avoid having to deal with the stress of riding on Boston roads. Seriously- it takes 5 minutes from Comm ave to get to the path...I'd rather stay safe there and go whatever speed I want without stopping. However when I am on a road, I do what I can to make sure that it's not possible for anyone to run the red without being a huge dumbass- mainly, blocking the bike lane. I've had plenty of people try to squeeze by me when I'm at the red, and usually a "what are you doing?" works enough to get the point across that running it would be a bad decision. When there's no cars and they pass, I yell at them.
I keep my GoPro on my handlebars not only to keep a record of when I'm on the streets, but in case another cyclist tries to start shit because I yelled at them.
The only thing I'm questioning in your statement:
Wouldn't a car with a dashcam do the same thing in the same situation? I feel like that's a moot point.
I don't think I've ever sat in someone's vehicle that has a GoPro or something similar.
What % of bikers have a camera? 10-20%? You should have to submit your last 24 hours of video in order to use GoPro video as evidence.
When it comes to red lights, I frequently see bikers blasting through steady red lights - not beating a yellow light. How often to drivers sit at a red light, wait 5 seconds and then drove into traffic? Probably not very often.
I literally shat bricks when I watched a biker (without a helmet) almost became paint on the sidewalk today when he blew through a red light @ School street while a USPS truck was turning on a green. But that feeling immediate turned to rage when he flipped the USPS driver off.
I get it, drivers break the laws all the time, I see that too. But bikers also do the same damn thing just as often if not more. There needs to be more awareness campaigns and citations on both parties in my opinion.
lets see 250lb person + bike is not equivalent to a 2000 lb car. I have hit people full speed on my bike(there fault, i am normally pretty cautious) and we both walked away unharmed. That would never happen in a car.
I think you just fuck your argument when you say that you've hit people at full speed and then claim no responsibility. What is full speed? 15-20 MPH? Maybe your instance was special and you walked away but you could seriously injure yourself and others at those speeds.
He was jay walking and cut between two cars so i could not see him, actual impact was not full speed because i jammed on my breaks. And bike accidents are not even remotely on the same scale as cars, People don't respect the fact that they are moving a 2000 lb death machine at 30-40 mph through tight crowded streets. Also i can only go as fast as my fat ass can move me, i don't have the power of hundreds of horses propelling me.
People often walk away from car accidents unharmed.
not when they hit pedestrians or bikers
Quite often, yes, actually. I'm not saying a majority of the time, but it's hardly rare.
[deleted]
[deleted]