Bicycle injuries: Is the right-of-way fight getting ugly?

[Onkel Neal]

Bicycle injuries: Is the right-of-way fight getting ugly?

They say bicyclists have a right to the road same as cars, but common sense would dictate otherwise. I never understood bicycle enthusiasts who casually pedal along in the middle of a lane, acting like there's no hazard here, while 4000 lb cars roar past. Dude, you are only going 18 mph in a 45, get outta the way!

Legal or not, if they cannot do the speed limit, they should not be there any more than pedestrians. Use something called the sidewalk.

As a motorcycle rider who never gets in the way of traffic, I also never ride along with that bicyclist mentality: I have a right to be here. Baloney. I am a motorcycle rider, I am faster than cagers, but I can be killed 25 times more likely, and I ride that way. Bicyclists should rethink their attitude. When it's you and a car, the car always has the right of way.

And bicyclists are surprised when they get run over. I bet squirrels and possums feel the same way.

[Takeda Shingen]

I cycle regularly. Neal, you are absolutely correct. Protocol and rights be damned--the heavier vehicle always has the right of way. Keeping that in mind will always make you a safe rider.

[Platapus]

In an accident between a bike and a car, even a tie is bad news for the rider.

[nikimcbee]

Just for you Neal.

[Skybird]

Hit-and-run, called "Fahrerflucht" over here, would bring you into very serious legal trouble if you get caught, the same for "unterlassene Hilfeleistung".

Many communities and cities in Germany since longer time invested into building special bicycle infrastructure, from the marks on the road that rdeserve a small lane only for bikes, to own lanes between car road and pedestrian's pavement. Also, rights and prohibitions are quite clearly regulated over here.

Problem is that many people behave stupid and careless when riding a bicycle, and do things they would not do in a car. Jumping red traffic lights, stopping not at the halt-line but driving almost onto the crossroad and then blicking the crossing bike traffic. Cutting the corner and the others have to emergency-brake. Driving rude, in dense crowds, almost assaulting pedestrians. Driving alcoholised, and so on.

Sidelanes must be used over here only when a traffic sign calls for that, else you have the choice whether to use that or the main road. Using sidelanes on the other side of the road is prohibited in general if not allowed by a traffic sign.

It depends on the place. Some cities have embedded bike-friendly infrastructure into their general traffic infrastructure, others lag behind. I have the luck that I live in an extremely bicycle-friendly city with plenty of specialised infrastrucre for bikes both inside and outside of town. It is the most bicycle-friendly town in Germany and one of the two or three cities in all europe that have more bikes than any other european city, competing for this ranking with Amsterdam and Copenhagen only.

The growing rate of bicycle accidents we have involves many children. The rise also can be explaiojned becasue the number of bicycle riders rises i general: more and mor epeople prefer it as an alternative to using a car or public transportation over typical in-town distances.

My advise: obey relevant traffic rules the very same way you would obey them when driving a car. Drive defensively, and not in the middle of the lane, but at the side. Do not scare pedestrians, and give up the right of way generously instead of enforcing it without any need - saves your nerves. Search eye contact with car drivers. Be friendly - you'll be surprised how often I see my smile or gesture getting returned from car drivers or bus drivers. Have good lights and brakes, always in good condition. Behave predictable.

The only people in traffic that give me trouble time and again - are bicycle riders. And when they come in a Rudel, I ring general quarters immediately. A holiday group of bicycle riders is a nightmare, since all cognitive functions and cortical activity get supressed the more the bigger the Rudel is.

[u crank]

I feel sorry for the people in the link who were killed or injured but I have to ask this question: Who has the 'right' to the road? Here and I suspect it is the same in most places, I have to pay to drive on the roads. I have to register my vehicle, get a drivers license, buy insurance, and get my car inspected and repaired yearly. A pedestrian or cyclist gets a free pass.

Until cyclists pay the same as I do, I believe I have the right to the road. That being said I have to watch out for these people and some of them think they are invincible. So please watch out for the people who pay to use the road.

[mookiemookie]

Agreed. Bike riders are a hazard, regardless of how entitled they feel to the road. They're slower than traffic, they cause dangerous situations by forcing cars to go around them or slow to a crawl behind them, and they should be relegated to designated bike lanes.

I can understand why they aren't allowed on sidewalks - they can injure pedestrians, because they're bigger and faster than them. Kind of like the same way that cars are when they're in the street.

One of the CNN commenters on that article said it best:

"The laws of man may favor you, but the laws of physics mean in any altercation you will be a pancake."

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by u crank

I feel sorry for the people in the link who were killed or injured but I have to ask this question: Who has the 'right' to the road? Here and I suspect it is the same in most places, I have to pay to drive on the roads. I have to register my vehicle, get a drivers license, buy insurance, and get my car inspected and repaired yearly. A pedestrian or cyclist gets a free pass.

Until cyclists pay the same as I do, I believe I have the right to the road. That being said I have to watch out for these people and some of them think they are invincible. So please watch out for the people who pay to use the road.

Sorry, but usually roads are no car-exclusive territory, although some car-maniacs tend to think so. Roads get maintained and payed and payed for by the general tax pool, btw, and taxes on gasoline are not exclusively tied to the purpose of being spend for car infrastructure. What you need to invest into your car's technical reliability, is just this: car reliability and security so that you do not move around in a rolling weapon that can go lose any moment and poses a mobile risk to other people. For the same reason, a bicycle needs to be maintained as well.

We live in a car-crazy world. But crowded city centers do not suffer when putting that insanity up for debate. The traffic jams, stinking emissions, noise and shortages in parking lots do not get caused by bicycles, but too many cars.

[Ducimus]

In a court of law, yeah sure, the dude on the bycicle has the right of way. However- the universal rule of the road is the same regardless of laws or countries..... That universal rules is:

He who's biggest wins.

A court of law isn't going to do you any good if your dead.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Agreed. Bike riders are a hazard, regardless of how entitled they feel to the road. They're slower than traffic, they cause dangerous situations by forcing cars to go around them or slow to a crawl behind them, and they should be relegated to designated bike lanes.

I can understand why they aren't allowed on sidewalks - they can injure pedestrians, because they're bigger and faster than them. Kind of like the same way that cars are when they're in the street.

One of the CNN commenters on that article said it best:

"The laws of man may favor you, but the laws of physics mean in any altercation you will be a pancake."

Maybe car drivers need to alter their attitude of mind. You guys just illustrate it: you seriously claim an exclusive right of cars for streets and roads. Well, at least in this we are already several steps ahead of you, then, and not just in my town.

The daily car madness in Germany happens not in the cities, but on the Autobahnen. The projectiles you sometimes can see there behave as if they are rolling mental asylums holding John Rambo in a fever dream. It is high time to get an absolute speed limit here of let's say 120 km/h or so.

[Skybird]

We have had an interesting experiment in some small towns in germany, I think they tried the same in Denmark or Holland, I am not sure.

They banned all traffic signs, all traffic lights, and lifted all regulations on who can use which poart of the street. Most traffic rules and laws also were lifted. No more "right before left", and so on.

The results were surprising.

The situation meant that everybody took more care, and establioshed eye contact with the others. Everybody was forced to be aware, to be defensive, and passive. Less traffic jams, steeply falling accident rates. A more relaxed traffic climate, people stayed more relaxed. And people: pedestrioans, cars, bicycles, motorbikes, they all formed a self-organising structure by which traffic regulated itself.

It was for the benefit of the single individual and the benefit of all. Possible tough that cars were no longer able to see the road as their private highspeed racetrack pattern. I think that loss is acceptable.

[MH]

Go with the flow



When i get to cycle from time to time i like to stay a bit off the sidewalk because of parked cars and to be seen.

[Sailor Steve]

Here in Salt Lake we have bike paths and bike trails, and bike lanes on most public streets. Also wide sidewalks and though the law says otherwise nobody cares if the cyclists use them as long as they don't run into any pedestrians, since it's obviously safer than a busy street. I here cyclists complain about how drivers treat them badly, but then I see bike riders ignore laws like red lights and stop signs.

I still don't have a car, so I ride the bus or I ride my bike. And when I ride the first rule of the road for me is "They really are out to get me". I'm very scrupulous about the law, especially when I could be part of that other old saying: "You could be right. Dead right."

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Sorry, but usually roads are no car-exclusive territory, although some car-maniacs tend to think so. Roads get maintained and payed and payed for by the general tax pool, btw, and taxes on gasoline are not exclusively tied to the purpose of being spend for car infrastructure. What you need to invest into your car's technical reliability, is just this: car reliability and security so that you do not move around in a rolling weapon that can go lose any moment and poses a mobile risk to other people. For the same reason, a bicycle needs to be maintained as well.

We live in a car-crazy world. But crowded city centers do not suffer when putting that insanity up for debate. The traffic jams, stinking emissions, noise and shortages in parking lots do not get caused by bicycles, but too many cars.

I believe you missed my point Skybird. I have to pass a drivers exam and then pay to have it renewed. Cyclists don't. I have to insure myself and my vehicle for liability if I injure someone else. Cyclists don't. I am forced by law to maintain my vehicle in safe working order. Cyclists are not.

I believe that if cyclists had to pay to use the road you would see a lot less of them. If cyclists had to prove that they know the rules of the road you would see less of them. If cyclists had to buy liability insurance you would see less of them.

This particular argument has nothing to do with pollution or too many cars but about common sense.

[Sailor Steve]

^ ^ ^

Also, at least here in the States, yearly registration includes a tax which goes to maintaining the roads. Motorists pay for the upkeep, cyclists don't.