As a bicyclist, let me say that my fellow cyclists are part of the problem.

Too many cyclists flaunt the traffic laws: riding on the wrong side of the street, running stop signs and traffic lights, riding at night with no lights. When was the last time you saw a car skirt around traffic by driving on the sidewalk?

This generates a fair bit of resentment on the part of drivers. When a cyclist is involved in an accident, people who don't bicycle assume it's the cyclist's fault, even when it clearly isn't.

We cyclists have as much right as drivers to be on the roads. However, standing on our rights in this area comes across as hypocritical when there are idiots on bicycles who refuse to accept the responsibility to follow the same laws as drivers. This irritates me no end...

There's a large and growing bicyclist population where I live. I don't mind sharing the road, but I hate driving anywhere near them.

Spotting other cars or pedestrians is no problem, but I find it hard to spot bikers. I really hate driving near a biker at night, especially in bad weather. Those little lights and reflectors aren't enough.

I've almost greased a cyclist twice - each time they ran a stop sign right in front of me, while I was moving at speed, and each time it was my quick reflexes that prevented them getting hit. What kind of idiot blows through a stop sign across a busy street? A cycling idiot obviously. I see more cyclists breaking the traffic laws then not.

While I am not saying it should be legal to hit and kill bicyclists, I am wondering what would be accomplished by prosecuting the people involved in these kinds of accidents. Will it make drivers more cautious? Will it save lives? Or will it just increase the misery? Seems like these are cases for accidental death lawsuits.

I think that the biking activists are projecting here. It's bicycling activists that identify as bicyclists, not car drivers that identify as motorists.

If it's true that most cycling fatalities involving a car are not prosecuted as crimes, the more likely reason is that the Police couldn't establish that the motorist was criminally at fault, rather than some blind loyalty among motorists. That's a rather paranoid analysis of the situation - bicyclists are really the one segment of society that can be killed with impunity?!?

You know the thing I LOVE about these stories?

The fact that they never provide proof. You can get access to damn near any police report you want, redact the names and how the pdf on your sever for all to see the proof of the time a motorist killed a cyclist, was clearly at fault, and nothing happened.

Its not like data storage requires sacrificing your firstborn child.

And yet they never do, which tells me they dont have any proof.

Out here, north of Scottsdale, south of Cave Creek we have lots of cyclists.

So many in fact that they will ride seven abreast on the two lane 45mph roads, which leaves two or three of them biking INTO ONCOMING TRAFFIC.

So no, I have a hard time feeling bad for cyclists.

I've yet to see a single one on the main roads (45mph+) who is not ignoring the rules of the road

Most of what I was thinking has already been said. One thing I noticed was that there is no link to any of the studies. If the study sponsor has an agenda, just about any result can be engineered. I'll bet the tobacco industry could sponsor a study that would find that there is no link between smoking and lung cancer.

I do wish that all cyclists would make an effort to be visible. I drive through a residential neighbourhood before dawn and no and then I (barely) see one in dark clothing with no lights or reflector.

I used to pass a recumbent bicyclist during rush hour every night. He and his bike were well-lit, and he rode on the shoulder when he ran out of bike lanes. No problems there.

When they are not well-lit and ride in the auto lanes, or run traffic lights (as I see daily) or mow down pedestrians on the sidewalk, they are at fault. I see no need to jail drivers for hitting someone they could not see who was where he should not be. Let's not punish drivers when cyclists decide to flirt with death.

I've seen too many cyclists do their damnest to get themselves killed by car to automatically assume car drivers are out to get cyclists. I think most human beings would never get over having caused a death accidentally, with their car or otherwise. So I don't think drivers are all like "asshole is in my way, I'm gonna smash his ass!"

Not to mention wrongful death lawsuits arose to fill a void-people who weren't criminally at fault, but were still at fault. Prison isn't the place for everyone who ever caused a death.

Sidebar: Dh took the CHL class a few weeks ago. I took it closing in on 2 decades ago and haven't ever carried, so it's all out the window of my memory at this point. He said half the class was spent going over the fact that you WILL end up in a lawsuit if you ever have to shoot someone-even if they were holding a knife to your throat at the time. That was something I hadn't thought of-the wrongful death lawsuit certain to ne filed against you.

One reality, is that even the cheapest cars have a protective cage, that save the occupants from serious injury, in a low speed collision.
Bikes have no such cage. Therefore your risk of injury and death, is probably a hundred fold greater on a bike.

Bikes are hard to see, especially at dawn and dusk.

The mere fact that someone is killed on a bike, when they tangle with an automobile, does not rise to the level of a criminal prosecution.

Anyone who has ever had even a minor fender bender with another vehicle, could have killed the rider, if the other vehicle was a bike.
I think if anyone was ever stupid enough to try and bring a criminal case against a driver, in the absence of a felony, like DUI, or really reckless driving, would be asking to lose at trial.
Most juries would take one look, and imagine the last time they had a minor traffic accident, and what would have happened if it had been a bike.

A couple of my worst wrecks on my bike were when pedestrians leaped out in front of me! I got hurt, they didn't.

As a person who has spent years biking, I can say a significant portion of them regularly ignore common-courtesy traffic laws, not to mention those who outright regularly break traffic laws. However, since we are an automobile culture we tend to hold drivers largely unaccountable when there is an accident (except if it’s a bike that hits a pedestrian). In complete contrast there is Japan where responsibility falls to the person who can cause the most damage (i.e. bicyclists have to look out for pedestrians, cars have to look out for both bicyclists and pedestrians) and regardless of what happened, if harm is caused you are held responsible. That is, even if someone ‘suddenly appears’ in front of you (bike or pedestrian), if you hit them you will be charged. This understandably leads to pedestrians texting on their phones and paying no attention to where they are walking. More interesting, you see bicyclists who are holding an umbrella, smoking a cigarette and texting on their phone—all while riding their bike! Regardless if you agree or not, it certainly makes you slow down and pay a lot more attention to the road—much less fiddling with the radio, texting/talking on the phone and eating/drinking with one hand on the wheel.

Not excusing obvious law-breaking behavior, but when a cyclist is coming to a stop sign (or light), since we are usually going 10-15 mph then slow to 5 mph (this is the speed of a fast walk/slow jog) we are in a good position to see oncoming traffic hence we ‘roll on through’, were applicable (and more common sense laws allow for this). This is like the usual rolling stop almost all cars make and I don’t hear any people loudly complaining about that behavior. As for riding a few abreast down the road, from long experience I have found that if I am ‘polite’ and get immediately next to the pavement’s edge on the shoulder, cars will commonly ‘buzz’ me (leaving only 1-2 feet while passing on my side). If I ride several feet in (or with someone next to me), cars will usually pass at the side with 4-5+ feet.

Just remember that the ‘beast’ is starved for tax money so when gas inevitably increases from $4 to $5 to $6/gallon and/or we start ‘black boxing’ the cars for mileage, there are going to be a lot more bicyclists on the roads.

Matt: "I am wondering what would be accomplished by prosecuting the people involved in these kinds of accidents."

Justice would be accomplished, Matt, justice. If someone is at fault for causing an accident then the proper crimnal charges should be brought against that person, whether it involved a bicycle, another car, or a child who was killed.

And fuck the plea bargaining crap - that denies the victim justice.

Having ridden a motorcycle for 40+ years I have some sympathy for bicycle riders. I can't count the number of times I have heard a cage (car or truck) driver say, "I didn't see him,her". It is better and worse than it used to be as now I am not automatically assumed to be a criminal for riding a motorcycle but there are so many more distractions available for drivers.
On a related issue I have a template I use to pass all 2 wheel vehicles. I call it "fall down room". Imagine an envelope 6 feet horizontally on either side of where the 2 wheeler contacts the pavement. This is the minimum clearance you need to leave when overtaking a 2 wheeler.

I spent the last decade in Boulder County, a mecca for cyclists. There have been at least two prosecutions I can think of in the last year for incidents involving cyclists and drivers. In one, an old man who didn't want to share the road harassed a couple of cyclists (forcing them off the road with his SUV), who whipped out their cameras to record him. He got a minor conviction. We also had a driver of a Mack truck convicted for failing to yield the right of way. He killed a cyclist who was descending a mountain road by turning left in front of him. So in my neck of the anecdotal woods, drivers have been prosecuted when they injure or kill cyclists.

It's true that there are many, many cyclists who don't obey the road rules. I'm seeing a lot of confirmation bias on this thread, though: how many cyclists do you see every day behaving properly, while only remembering the ones who didn't? And there are definitely drivers out there who react like a bull to a red cape any time they see a cyclist or, god forbid, have to wait 15 sec to pass them safely on the road.

There seems to be something obvious missing from this article: drivers are almost never prosecuted for deaths or injuries from car-on-car accidents, either except in cases of DUI or hit and run. The issue isn’t that drivers who hit cyclists are treated differently, it’s that in general society has chosen not to criminally punish drivers involved in traffic accidents.

>>Justice would be accomplished, Matt, justice. If someone is at fault...

Accidents are accidents, and often no one is clearly at fault. In which case there is no justice, only misery.

Justice would be accomplished, Matt, justice. If someone is at fault for causing an accident then the proper crimnal charges should be brought against that person, whether it involved a bicycle, another car, or a child who was killed.

There is a distinction between deliberate action that cause injury or death and a miscalculation that causes an accident involving injury or death.

Many years ago in my local area a young driver (age 22) was out one icy morning driving about 45-50 mph on an interstate highway in a medium sized car. There were two firetrucks parked end-to-end behind a prior accident. She put on her brakes but slid into the rear of the last fire truck and moved it enough to crush an EMT between the two vehicles. His legs were crushed and cut an artery. He died. She pled guilty to failure-to-control which was a $120 fine with court costs and two points on her license. Do you think she is ever going to forget it? Do you think she was actually at fault for killing him or was the subject of circumstances?

Someone a few days ago mentioned the Swiss Cheese model of accident causation.

In the case I mentioned above

• If she had left the house later/earlier...
• If the EMT had moved faster or slower...
• If the DOT had laid more salt...
• If the prior accident hadn't occurred...
• If she was driving a mini-Cooper...
• If she had 4-wheel drive...
• If the ABS worked or was installed...
• If Mother Nature wasn't a bitch...
• If the vehicle had traction control...
• If she drove slower...
• Something else?

This is the definition of an accident.

There are things that lead to an injury or death that can be deliberately avoided. These include intoxication, functioning lights and signals, being in your lane, deciding if you actually need to go to work in a Level III weather condition and other stuff

And fuck the plea bargaining crap - that denies the victim justice. -- Charles at November 10, 2013 8:53 PM

There are days that I agree with that, but stopping plea bargains means that most of our courts would require at least quadruple the taxes and would mean many people would get off because they refused to sign the speedy trial waiver. As it stands now that without, many prosecutorial legal hoops, a person is subject to a trial by jury or judge within six months. Even for misdemeanor offenses (simple DUI, minor assault (bar fight), simple robbery or shoplifting.) Some states have an even shorter limit.

I'll use the simple DUI (stopped for not using a turn signal) with a guy at .09 in a .08 limit state. He doesn't give the speedy trial waiver and hires an attorney and didn't give a BAC test. So now the whole case depends on believing that he said to the cop that he had two beers between 5:15 and 7:00 PM when he was stopped (stupidly admitted to the cop) and that he didn't use a turn signal. Please empanel a jury on that. Or even if the dashcam footage shows him testing okay roadside and he blew .09.

Then there is the Cleveland Kidnapping case. If he hadn't agreed to life without parole plus centuries and the kidnapped women hadn't also agreed, they surely they would have had to have confronted him in a trial.

Do you think that is better?

We had a motorcyclist killed near my house, when he T-boned an SUV, that had stopped appropriately at a stop sign, and then pulled into the intersection in front of him.
Driver was sober, just couldn't see the bike because the rider was directly in front of the setting sun, and riding east.

Do you really want drivers to face criminal charges in a situation like this?

Honestly, I think that bicycles and cars should not be on the same roads, with the exception of maybe side streets with a very low speed limit.

Bicycles are too slow, they're too hard to pass on a 2-lane road if there's oncoming traffic in the other lane, you have to slow down way too much if you get stuck behind one.

Bicycles should only be allowed on either very slow roads, or roads where there is a fairly wide, separate bicycle lane or special bicycle sidewalk or pathway.