Bullshit. Accident doesn’t imply lack of fault. It implies lack of intent. Murder implies intent to kill. Accident != murder != lack of fault but does equal a lack of intent. Collision is description of a physical occurrence that implies nothing about intent or responsibility. Fuck the word police trying to change meanings of words just to play to whatever their cause du jour happens to be.
2 Likes
WRT horses every sign I’ve ever seen says everyone yields to the horse, because well it’s hard to know for certain wtf the horse is going to do. Bicycles yield to everyone… well according to the signs on all the nature trails I’ve been on.
Actually, in much the same same way that ‘electrocution’ usually doesn’t actually imply death, common usage has it kinda otherwise, or the sentence, ‘Hey, c’mon, it was just an accident; it was nobody’s fault’ wouldn’t sound as authentic and banal as it does.
‘Word police’ are a thing because every now and then it behooves us to recognise that sometimes important distinctions get muddied along the way, and it’s occasionally worthwhile for some folks to stand up and make a damn point, if you don’t mind.
To recap: ‘accident’ does in fact imply no fault, regardless of what dictionaries say, and motorists get away with bloody murder (or far more often, manslaughter). Why, in some jurisdictions, if you want to get away with running a red light, you’re better off killing a cyclist on the way through the intersection. And you’re gonna sit there and complain that you have to hear voices raised about motorists’ impunity.
Cause du jour, my arse. Cause du fucking siècle.
Well first, electrocution means death by electric shock… so… it pretty much does imply death.
Second, speak for yourself. The vast majority of the time when I hear people use the word “accident” it means exactly what accident means - an unplanned incident. From “she had an accident” as a euphemism for someone who has soiled their pants to someone having an accident while skiing and breaking a leg to yes, getting into a car accident - none of which I take to either imply nor absolve fault.
Hell, when someone gets into a car accident, the first thing people do (well, after checking damage and treating people) is assess who was at fault because when two cars collide (which is far, far more common than hitting a pedestrian/cyclist), it isn’t like everyone throws up their hands and thinks, “well that’s just what cars do.”
2 Likes
Perhaps you live in a magical land of fairy ninja cyclists and pedestrians, but the more likely explanation is just that drivers are being negligent and belligerent. Pedestrians and cyclists in the real world are actually visible if you’re actually looking.
I’ve never had trouble seeing cyclists or other pedestrians when I’m walking down the street.
I have however ridden along with plenty of drivers who don’t even bother to look. They just set a mental filter that must be something like “alert me if there’s another huge chunk of metal in my way but otherwise ignore everything else so that I don’t have to bother paying attention” and tune out the world around them.
Brings to mind something from Zen And The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance about the difference between being actively in the world, actually sensing it and being a part of it, vs just passing by while seeing it in the windows as if on a TV screen while on the way to somewhere else.
4 Likes
Marty - I’m not one to usually get into debates online, but you are really typifying a view that is, while apparently common (esp. in these cycles v. auto discussions), also woefully myopically motorist-centric. I’m sure that your concern for the general safety is genuine - but please let me bring some points in response to your anecdotes and wake up call. Coming from a (currently) urban auto commuter - bicycle enthusiast w/ over a decade of full time urban bike commuting and past commercial driving experience.
They are definitely aware.
When witnessing cyclist behavior that seems unsafe to you : consider that (unlike a driver), a bicyclist has neither engine noise nor panels separating them acoustically from their surroundings - provided that they are not wearing headphones (which frankly is suicidal), a cyclist’s auditory input and unrestricted visual field provide a massively greater degree of raw sensory situational awareness of their surroundings.
Imagine you are biking; your nervous system is much more responsive and engaged than if you’re reclined behind the wheel with the radio on. Your physiology is keyed to the ever present possibility of life-or-death developments when sharing the roads with motor vehicles. You can bet those cyclists that startled you were aware of your vehicle long before you noticed them - and they had accounted for your trajectory and signalling (or lack therof). (The big exception is the dark-clothing/no-light at night thing - overtake collisions in that scenario are fairly common and definitely preventable with basic gear).
Basic laws of physics determine that a bicycle is dramatically more maneuverable - on a bike one can start, stop and change their direction of travel much quicker than any driver can, relative to the size of each vehicle. When riding, I take the lane on most city streets (when traffic speeds are comparable, it is definitely safer than hugging the shoulder), and am routinely through intersections before cars (lower mass and proper gearing). I keep pace with car traffic easily on streets where there is moderate traffic and there are signals or stop signs on each block or so. In that case there is no reason not to take the full lane, and if I ride timidly on the side I am at higher risk of being doored, not noticed and/or passed unsafely.
Solid arguments are being forwarded in the wider discussion for cyclists to be allowed to regard stop signs as yields for the reasons above (current proposal in SF under debate). [Almost everyone does this already, because it is the only thing that makes sense when riding]. i.e. Slow down; check the cross traffic situation; - proceed as is fitting. Roads (and bikes on them for that matter) existed long before cars became the main users and will continue to in the future, when a different (and I expect, greater) variety of modes exist. In any case, the velocipedes aren’t going to go away, so wouldn’t you agree that it’s in everyone’s interest to discuss and encourage safe ways to coexist on the roads?
6 Likes
I can attest to that being a thing. I once walked, not ran, in front of a car stopped at a stop sign. After they were done looking for cars in the cross street, they proceeded to pull forward not noticing me walking directly in front of their car. It wasn’t even night! I basically jumped onto the hood, rather than go under the wheels, so I wasn’t injured. (Good thing I didn’t have a heart condition though.) Once I was off the car, they took off, and, unfortunately, I didn’t have the presence of mind to get their license number, because that was quite clearly hit and run, despite my lack of injuries.
6 Likes
I’m not speaking for myself at all; I’m talking about common usage as opposed to literal definitions. If you’re going to maintain that people don’t overwhelmingly use the term ‘electrocution’ for non-fatal shocks, therefore not usually implying its actual literal meaning in common usage, it strikes me that perhaps you’re not particularly qualified to talk about what people often imply with the term ‘accident’.
You’re basically denying that ‘accident’ ever gets used to imply an incident is nobody’s fault, which is utter bunk. You can’t expect to come and sweep away the entire basis of this thread on the strength of a sterile dictionary definition that’s entirely beside the point.
it isn’t like everyone throws up their hands and thinks, “well that’s just what cars do.”
Actually, it kind of is, and that’s the point here. Obama said to compare the risk of terrorism to the risk of gun violence (in the US), not to the risk of road carnage. That’s just background noise for the vast majority; Ralph Nader and Jackie Stewart are complete outliers.
2 Likes
the lowest-earning quarter of Americans make nearly one-third of all bike trips […] bike trips don’t appear to be the province of any one income class more than any other.
12 Likes
Even an accident with gross negligence involved is still an accident, and not homicide, murder, or similar. There is a good reason for these distinctions. I’m a bicycle commuter myself and totally get your point, and fully support it! In most countries except cyclist paradises like the Netherlands or Denmark, both the infrastructure and the legal system are set up to the disadvantage of cyclists, and are in desperate need for change. But I still think the rhetoric here is too strong, and will put people off the point rather than convincing them.
1 Like
I agree with you 100% on this one, Cory. Accidents do happen, but it isn’t an accident if you’ve made the decision to drive like a fucking arsehole; in these instances, it’s just a consequence.
There are lots of ways in which we encourage driving like arseholes; poor road design that either prioritises motor vehicle flow over all other modes of travel, or poor road design that frustrates drivers. Poor town planning that permits motor vehicles in unsuitable areas. Per-load models of employment that push tipper truck drivers to speed and drive with undue attention. Also the normalisation of bad driver behaviour, because it is so ubiquitous, and further a prevailing attitude in law enforcement and the courts that driving is some kind of right that cannot be infringed, leading to lower rates of drivers being charged as police give the benefit of the doubt, juries being reticent to convict (because a good proportion of them can easily envisage being in a similar situation) and light sentencing from judges.
One of the main weapons against this and that would encourage courteous and considerate driving would be the adoption of strict liability on the part of motor vehicle operators (that is, if you bring a motor vehicle onto the roads you are assumed to be responsible for the elevated risk to others that this entails) as currently this is a negative externality forced upon the rest of society. However there are probably complications with applying this in a common-law system where innocence is presumed.
1 Like
Yeah, there was that one case in Bristol where a pedestrian (teenage girl) jumped out in front of a cyclist coming down a steep hill.That’s almost all. I think there have been 6 cases of a cyclist killing a pedestrian in the UK in the last decade. In that time there have been more cases of cars killing pedestrians on the pavement (sidewalk if you’re USian).
2 Likes
What if the cars behind you are expecting you to behave as if you have right of way (because you do)? Stopping to give way to a vehicle that doesn’t have right of way puts you at risk of being clobbered by other inattentive drivers, because your riding behaviour becomes unexpected or erratic (at least, that’ll be the reason the police give for not pressing charges).
2 Likes
The latest research I saw found cyclists at fault in about 6% of collisions.
1 Like
They’re fully aware how little drivers look, I assure you!
2 Likes
Maybe anyone who’s cycled in traffic for any reasonable length of time has had that experience of seeing a driver arrive at a junction with the road you’re cycling on, pause, look, make eye contact with you, and pull out anyway. I’ve been lucky, not just because I’ve never been hurt (riding defensively helps, as do drum brakes), but because on the few occasions when I’ve talked to the driver, it’s been perfectly polite on both sides. What they always say is: “Sorry, I didn’t see you.” Sounds like inattentional blindness to me.
3 Likes
To me I do not see a dichotomy. What I see is the need for all types of users of the roads (car, bike, motorcycle, pedestrians) to acknowledge and respect each other by trying to be cautions, courteous and respectful of the rules that apply to us all and give way to each other simultaneously.
In general I try really hard to be respectful of others when I am driving or walking along a roadside. I go slow, move as far away as possible given the circumstances when passing, stop well before crosswalks and try not block bike lanes, etc. As a pedestrian, I am happy to wait 10 or 15 extra seconds for immediate traffic to clear before I step into a non light controlled crosswalk and move myself and my dog off to the side when traffic is coming and we are walking.
However, I seem to be one of the few who make that effort. I will admit that I am far from perfect and get a little sick of fellow road users who do not make the same efforts I do and hence will stop caring about the comfort (never the safety) of fellow road users when they make no effort to be respectful of me in whatever mode I am using the road (car/bike/walk)
I think that might be a part of getting car drivers to be more respectful of cyclists in particular. Getting cyclists to respect the rules of the road they are obligated to obey and in doing so showing respect to fellow users of the road. I hear all the time that people on bikes shouldn’t need to follow the rules for cars, its safer to not stop at lights and stops signs for bikes etc. I think that leads to contempt for cyclists in addition to a citation needed.
So I think that would be a major step forward to getting bikes more accommodated and hence a safer environment, a huge effort to educate drivers and cyclists in the rules of the road as they relate to the different types of road users and getting both to follow them since it does not appear we will be able to come to that end with individual efforts only, based on my experience.
I am not really clear on your point with this graphic, but I do not think it applies to this discussion. The rules of yielding in the air, much like on water where unpowered craft generally have the right of way, is due to the more limited amount of control those vehicles have. Bikes and pedestrians do not have any more limited amount of control over their directions and ability to quickly execute maneuvers than cars do. In fact, if you want to go by who has the least flexibility in maneuvering, it is probably the car so they should be given the most right of way based on the logic of graphic you present.
Further, all of the craft in your graphic are still required to follow to the very best of their ability the rules and legal restrictions on how and where they may operate and would be found at least partially at fault if they willfully ignored those restrictions and caused a collision.
It’s not even that - many drivers will consistently do the opposite of what is appropriate or expected when a cyclist signals. Signalling a right turn (in the UK, left in US) or a move into the centre lane to pass around a stationary vehicle is practically begging the car behind to suddenly wake up and accelerate into the exact space you’re trying to move into.
