As a biker in NYC, police cars are the most dangerous thing on the road for you. They roll through red lights, never use blinkers, cut you off without looking, park in bike lanes, and occasionally just drive down one way streets. All this without running their emergency lights, just as matter of everyday driving.
Anecdotal point: I was biking in Toronto recently and I rolled past a cyclist that was just hit by a white van. An ambulance and police car were next to it responding.
I biked slowly passed the van (in a clear bike lane) and then about 20 seconds later after passing through a stop light beyond the accident, a police car flew in front of me, cut me off, and proceeded to park in the bike lane in front of me, making me break hard and go around him.
You'd think while the police are responding to a bike accident call they'd temporarily give a shit about our safety.
I witnessed some pretty questionable police driving in Boston. The greater Boston area is not known for stellar road quality and there are lots of poorly designed lane merges. For example, one time I saw a state trooper zooming between lanes, cutting people off, not using his turn signals. The cruiser's lights and sirens were off. It is possible that the officer was trying to catch up to someone in moderately heavy traffic without attracting lots of attention, but turn signals are really not that hard to use. My problem with this behavior is that aside from the obvious safety issues, this sets a bad example. It tells everyone around that turn signals are optional.
On an unrelated note, so many of Boston's driving problems can be fixed with paint. There are many miles of road surface where the lane markers have worn out and it is not clear where people should be driving. When it is not clear, each driver makes up their own rules, lanes, etc. What's worse, the places where the paint is most worn out are typically busy intersections or the rotaries they use so much, which leads to some of the most hectic driving conditions an unprepared driver can be thrown into. As a side note to this side note, I actually wonder how something like Google's self-driving cars would do in an environment like this.
The only place where I have personally seen worse driving is in Ukraine, where despite having lanes, they are typically just ignored. For example, if there are three wide lanes at an intersection, they become five very tight actual lanes.
I live in the Minneapolis area and it's the same story here. I actually stopped riding at night because of it. And to top it off we're supposed to have the most "bike friendly" city but apparently nobody told the cops.
I have dozens of stories where bikers have been hit and badly injured by cops not slowing down at intersections, trying to get around cars and driving in the bike lane and hitting bikers.
In NYC, the bike lane is the "kill zone" for double parked cars and opening doors. I always try to avoid it, unless its one of the (few) good ones that is actually blocked off from traffic. Because cops are always "pulling over" into a double-parked position (as in not parking on the curb), they tend to infringe on this space by default...Same with taxi's pulling over to pick up fares...and pedestrians trying to flag a cab as well...not to mention the delivery guys going the wrong way...etc...a veritable obstacle course
People complain all the time about the subset of bikers who disobey road signs but the fact is that mistakes and negligence on the part of drivers are always far more dangerous than on the part of bikers. More so, the arrangement of "bike lanes" as well as the laws themselves typically make it very, very difficult for bikelrs to get from point A to point B without at some point either putting themselves in excessive danger or effectively violating the law.
Rule makers typically just assume that bikers can either safely blend themselves into normal vehicular traffic or teleport across gaps in properly laid out bike access areas (which tend to be rare and never fully connected with each other). It's a ridiculous and unsafe situation that we've become accostomed to existing merely because it's the status quo. And then we wonder why not so many people commute by bike in most cities.
How long until the stolen lives of bicyclists are treated with the same respect as pedestrians and drivers?
A 'police car' hits a person, not the person driving the vehicle? The police officer's injuries detailed, yet no actual details of the accident of quotes from witnesses? Lets see if charges are pressed for this potential vehicular manslaughter... or even a criminal investigation! You know it would be if this were a pedestrian or other driver. My law-abiding friend, during a group ride in the bike lane, was struck and killed last month on Highway 1. The cops let the driver off, his illegal speeding and loss of control of his vehicle being simply 'an accident.'
How long until the stolen lives of bicyclists are treated with the same respect as pedestrians and drivers?
How long until bicyclists stop pretending that traffic rules don't apply to them? Or that they don't get to pick and choose when they're vehicles and when they're pedestrians -- if they're on the road, they're a vehicle? Or that, they too, have to come to a stop at a red light or stop sign? Or that they also have to respect pedestrians in crosswalks and can't just barrel through them?
I don't see how traffic laws have anything to do with respect for life or equality in the eyes of the law.
You've provided a perfect example of the cognitive dissonance that immediately manifests when cycling, traffic, and law are discussed. These are easy points to grab onto, based on one's own frustrated anecdotes. Unfortunately, its selection bias at its least. Cars are everywhere and almost hit you every 10 minutes you're behind the wheel. You know how to look for them, you're forced to when you are being evaluated for your license. Suddenly a cyclist comes along, the first one you notice that is, and once they act even a little sketchy you get to tick another box in your selection bias.
Were he to be 'hit by a police car' while driving in his motorcycle or compact car, and likely killed, would we be discussing the validity of his death and its relation to the traffic habits of other cars/motorcycles/Ferrari drivers? I dare you to tell us yes.
Meanwhile, this is completely independent of the issue of legal respect for life. The disproportionate number of charges dropped or DA's not charing offenders for incidents that involve cyclist deaths.
>Were he to be 'hit by a police car' while driving in his motorcycle or compact car, and likely killed, would we be discussing the validity of his death and its relation to the traffic habits of other cars/motorcycles/Ferrari drivers? I dare you to tell us yes.
Yes. More people die every day and year in motor vehicle<>motor vehicle collisions than in vehicle<>bike collisions. On top of that, criticizing a cop's behavoir is something HN (and many other places) loves to do.
Maybe you would assume that, but from experience much of the vitriol would be focused on the fact that a cop probably broke the law and in the process killed someone. The life of a cyclist is no more precious than the life of anyone else.
Try this out sometime, and see how far it gets you. Take up a full lane of traffic, as is your right as a vehicle, and see how long it takes before someone tries to run you down, because risking arriving at the office thirty seconds earlier is worth risking bodily harm to another human in a fit of road rage.
> Take up a full lane of traffic, as is your right as a vehicle
When cycling, you should only do this when you can keep up with traffic. Which is especially difficult when you have to slow down or stop often since you can't accelerate as quickly as a car.
You're attempting to say that because a subset of cyclists don't obey traffic rules therefore it's okay to not treat cyclists who are killed in traffic accidents as human beings.
I think he was raging at the cyclists that don't obey the rules of the road, not cyclists in general. I know I can separate the two out in my mind.
For example: when a bike is curb-hopping and ignoring stoplights, I become frustrated at their wanton disregard for their own safety. When I see a bike riding on the side of the road in their lane, focused and stopping at lights, I don't complain and comfortably wait until there's space for me to pass him with a wide berth and then do so.
It's the same with pedestrians. I don't get upset if they're walking on the road. I get angry because I'm scared for their safety when they think it's okay to j-walk across 6 lanes of traffic in rush hour at night while wearing black because "I'm a pedestrian and if you hit me, I'll sue." No. If I hit you, you'll probably die because I'm a ton and a half of metal and you're 150 pounds of water and carbon.
Cars are big and they are very dangerous. I may love my car and I love driving it. I love biking and I love walking as well and in some places in the world, we've designed it so that all of these activities can be done in close proximity with relatively high safety and everyone needs to do their part to keep it a safe environment. When cars don't respect bikers, people get hurt. When bikes don't respect cars and predictability (by staying in their lane, going WITH traffic, stopping at traffic lights, or staying on the sidewalk, etc), people get hurt. When pedestrians think they're God and don't pay attention to cars OR bikes, people get hurt.
I have no idea what happened in this single instance that the article itself is talking about; but frustration with a certain kind of biker does not automatically result in believing "it's okay to not treat cyclists who are killed in traffic accidents as human beings".
Thank you for the well thought out reply and I'll admit and apologize that the previous reply was snarky with a bit of anger.
However, it suffices to say that using a thread lamenting the death of a cyclist for venting about improper cyclist behavior isn't a considerate thing to do. Let alone quoting a line that correctly suggests that motorists who kill cyclists are not treated similarly to motorists who are at fault in other fatal accidents.
Accidents between vehicles and cyclists are not often the cyclist's fault (in <10% of accidents is the cyclist at fault)[1]. Bicycling organizations "do not know of a single case of a cyclist fatality in which the driver was prosecuted, except for D.U.I. or hit-and-run,”[2].
Bikers and drivers alike have a lot of frustration on the matter and it tends to crop up whenever there's an accident -- since people don't want to, don't think to, don't care to, don't something about this situation until something like this happens.
That said, yes, it was perhaps a poor time to bring it up; but, during these bad times, people are more likely to bring it up, since it's how they deal with the issues at hand.
That isn't at all what I'm "attempting" to say. If the GP wants to complain about the law not being "enforced" to punish the cop perhaps they should complain about the lack of enforcement on cyclists too
"Perhaps" is an infamous weasel-word. Why not say that you value all cyclists' lives less because some cyclists have flaunted traffic laws in a way that annoys you? If that isn't your point, what is?
Let me know when a cyclist last killed a cop and lets talk about who got charged what.
Also, you still are equating Failure to Stop's (which sure, could maybe someday cause some sort of fatal whatever someday whenever)... with the actual, real, actual loss of life.
Just to close this out, out of respect for the lives of Milton, the cop, Josh all others cited above... I'm not really a cyclist. I like it, its fun, and I ride safe on the handful of rides I have each year.
You're not a pedantic little shit. You're arguing with a jerk.
Equating cyclists running stop signs to drivers killing cyclists in bike lanes is ridiculous, especially given that the cyclist in the example pled guilty to homicide and drivers are - literally - never prosecuted for killing cyclists.
Don't be so quick to demean yourself in the face of asinine attacks.
There's a lack of enforcement of a lot of motoring laws too. I've sped plenty of times without being caught, I haven't always used the blinkers and sometimes I've even parked illegally. I've jumped the occasional red light.
What you are saying about cyclists applies equally to motorists, so I really don't know what point you are trying to make. The _vast majority_ of both groups are law abiding people.
I notice you use the pronoun 'Them' to refer to cyclists.
'They' make you sick with 'their' bullshit.
'They' break laws, while of course 'we' are wonderful, and our law breaking is justified.
'They' think they enjoy special privileges, while 'our' special privileges are unquestioned.
And of course anyone defending 'them' must be one of 'them'.
'They' are remorseless killers, look I have proof!
If only 'they' weren't so different and stubborn. If only 'they' behaved good like 'we' do.
We should probably put a stop to 'them'.
> How long until bicyclists stop pretending that traffic rules don't apply to them?
Yes. Making sure that every bicyclist obeys the traffic rules is so much more important solving the problems of people dying because cars hit them. Rule and order is way more important than people's lives. Let's get angry about it.
Anecdotally, my experience has been that most people that get hit by cars as bicyclists are those that are following the rules diligently. Every accident I am personally aware of (n=5) involved the save courteous bikers I know. The aggressive bikers are typically far more skilled in operating their bicycles, but have has more near misses. They are generally far more actively aware of threats and constantly assess threat situations that they may get into and threat situations that might happen to them. Aggressive bicyclists know a lot more about how drivers are likely to behave on the road and can predict that behavior to their advantage.
Was anyone else a bit put-off that it was the patrol car that killed the cyclist, and not the person driving the patrol car (as it would have been reported had it not involved an officer)?
Clearly the automobile was moving quite fast when it struck the cyclist. I've seen similar damage when a car struck a cow at 55mph. I'm not familiar with the street in question, but it seems likely the speed of the automobile was not anticipated by the cyclist.
If as it seems the cyclist was rear-ended, it isn't actually relevant whether he was in the bike lane or not. Rear-ending is illegal and dangerous, period. Speed awareness is mainly important at intersections. Away from intersections, all vehicle operators are responsible for maintaining a safe distance between their vehicle and those ahead.
My original point was just that the automobile was moving quite fast. Thanks for seeking clarity!
Yeah, it was weird. The car went under the cow, and the cow destroyed the windshield and damaged the leading edge of the roof. The driver did not require medical attention. The cow walked off but died within two days. I'm sure in other cases the driver and cow both might have been killed immediately.
Come on, while there are plenty reckless police officers, there also plenty of reckless cyclists, we don't even know what happened.
It possible the officer hit him, but it is also possible he didn't see the car, misjudged its speed or merge from a side street.
Let save judgment for when we know what happened. And poor officer is right, regardless if he was at fault or not, he has a heavy burden to carry.
If the officer did wrong, I will be glad to see him pay societies price for such a mistake, but until then- I'll just be blown away by the continual lack of empathy and pragmatism shown here.
> Come on, while there are plenty reckless police officers, there also plenty of reckless cyclists
The standard is slightly higher when you are a police officer. For example, I don't think I've ever seen police cars follow at a safe distance. It's clearly a foreseeable outcome that if the car in front needs to brake hard there will be a collision, yet people would say it is an unfortunate accident if they happen to hit the car in front of them.
Driving your car under control means exactly that. Give bikers a wide berth. Slow down if it is unsafe to pass. Stop tailgating. Slow down in general.
>The standard is slightly higher when you are a police officer.
I never said the standard wasn't higher- Also, I'm glad I don't live where you live, the police tend to drive very conservatively where I live, unless there is due cause.
>Driving your car under control means exactly that. Give bikers a wide berth. Slow down if it is unsafe to pass. Stop tailgating. Slow down in general.
Did the officer have his siren and lights on? Where I live cars (and bicycles) are required to pull over to allow the police car past. I assume you are not suggesting that a police car responding to an incident should should "Give bikers a wide berth. Slow down..." because that is ridiculous.
I agree with everything but the 'slow down' part. There are plenty of locations where it is safe to drive at a high rate of speed, especially during the day time; however, slow down if it's unsafe to pass? Absolutely. Slow down if you're in a residential zone or location where it's probable to see pedestrians on or near the road? Absolutely. Slow down if conditions make it unsafe to drive at a higher rate of speed (rain, snow)? Absolutely.
Sorry, I should have specified that. I had already wrote too much as it was. I agree with you. I don't mind speeding on highways, but I mind the tailgating on the highways.
I'm surprised that the biker was able to smash the windshield hard enough to cut the driver with the glass. Windshields are laminated so they don't shatter and splinter when hit.
I dare you to scroll through http://www.streetsblog.org/ for a few pages. Unless you are DUI or run from the scene, being in a car is a license to kill people, no matter if you have been speeding, your license was suspended or your brakes defect.
To my knowledge, the camera is only recording when the sirens are on, not 100% sure if this is true so take it with a grain of salt but I don't think there will be footage.
Speculation: The dash-cam might have some type of buffer that allows for it to save the moments leading up to an officer turning on the sirens though so maybe it is saved.
Looking at the map where that happened, that's an incredibly bad part of the road. There is a hill with very little visibility of what's in front of you as you pass it. There is a bike lane further down, but I think at the hill the road narrows and there is no bike lane or protected area.
And of course people go flying through that section. Cops aren't the only offenders there, but they sure don't make it any safer.
"We do not know of a single case of a cyclist fatality in which the driver was prosecuted, except for D.U.I. or hit-and-run,” Leah Shahum, the executive director of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, told me."
Cycling is just going to get more common, at what point will the having less rights bias end? Will it take someone of David Byrne's status getting hit to actually do anything about this?
That is a great article. It's important to look at the language used by media in these cases, for example look at this local news article about the ex-Napster person's accident, the headline is: "Bicyclist dies after hitting patrol vehicle in Calabasas" which implies that the cyclist was the one who hit the police car, even though he was rear ended. "The man was riding east on the road when he crashed into a patrol car traveling in the same direction, officials said."
And this is why I don't ride a bicycle. Despite the health and cost savings benefits, it just isn't worth putting myself mere feet from all the crazy drivers with no concern for my safety.
