Call this some fallacy of observation or confirmation bias or whatever, but I see bikers biking the wrong way weaving between traffic on NYC streets, running red lights (generally when there are no cars, but hey, it’s still running a red light), and doing other dangerous-for-pedestrian things literally every time I go outside. A few months ago I was clipped by a biker going the wrong way through a red light as I was in the crosswalk. Almost a year ago a friend was hit full speed by a biker in the East Village and lost two teeth.
Of course a car hitting a pedestrian will be worse for the pedestrian than a bike in the same situation. But many bikers are dangerous too, at least in NYC, and when I walk the streets I’m more afraid of a biker coming out of nowhere than I am of a car doing the same.
I have a hard time understanding the knee-jerk reaction to marginialize how dangerous bikers can be when an article calls out this behavior. There’s always some counter argument about how dangerous cars are. They are both dangerous, now can we just admit this and start asking cities to police dangerous biking too?
I’m also doubtful and suspect that the data is essentially cherry picked. Relative to distance travelled, I suspect cyclists do indeed break traffic laws more frequently. Especially if “severity” of violation is accounted for.
i.e. There’s often some jackass in a car who runs the red light shortly after it changes. However, despite the blatant law violation, it’s not that dangerous because it happens immediately after the light change and for better or worse, people expect it. Cyclists on the other hand will often blow through a light whenever they get there if they think they can make it through without getting hit, whether that’s right after the light changes or two minutes later. The car running the red light immediately after it changes is quite frequent but the cyclist running the light whenever it’s convenient is more egregious even if less frequent.
I think it's that drivers break laws in more predictable ways. They may run red lights in the first few seconds, not come to complete stops when required, and aggressively try to turn right on red. But for pedestrians, those actions are easier to foresee and protect against than the minority of cyclists who completely ignore traffic laws.
I understand that bikes are more concerning than cars for pedestrians due to being quiet and going the wrong way, and I hate as much as the next guy. It is bicyclists' responsibility to obey traffic laws. It seems that the police should enforce the laws against these e-bikes going the wrong way or not stopping at stop signs, not for existing in the first place.
We seem to be very against bells in the US.
Bikes, on the other hand, frequently zoom down one-way streets against the flow of traffic, rarely make any audible sound (whether ringing a bell or shouting) so you can hear them coming, and treat traffic lights as suggestions.
I can't count the number of times I've almost gotten hit (as a pedestrian)by a biker when I'm crossing a street with the walk signal, because a biker decided that he could barrel down a one-way street, against the traffic, and didn't even need to bother to slow down for pedestrians walking with the walk signal.
Yes, not all bikers are like that. But there are enough of them that they pose an actual problem for NYC pedestrians.
It’s not dissimilar in London. Cycle couriers are known as psycho couriers for a reason.
If when we bike we break the rules, we might generate dangerous situations for pedestrians, for ourselves and for cars. It took me while to realize this.
On the other side, if the rules are inappropriate, then yes, we have to bargain for new rules. But the article did not added anything about this. God thanks I do not need to register my bike and get a plate!
But we might need to develop a test to get a e-bike license :)
Maybe enforce a minimum elapsed time and price for a delivery? If they get there sooner, they have to wait for the next job.
I honestly applaud looking for more fruitful and effective areas to regulate, but in this case, I don’t think you found the appropriate target.
Maybe make the services partially liable for any accidents, and they'll make some changes in their routing?
Of course corporate entities don't want it, they tend to be pro-deregulation. So injuries have been downplayed because, as others have said, they are not deaths.
This could perhaps be handled by requiring registration of all vehicles for commercial purposes, as they are usually under the most pressure to increase throughput and thus bend rules. This would deal with the issue of unfairly disadvantaging the poor who need the economy afforded by bike transport, while dealing with the exploitation of the lack of regulation by corporate entities.
The reasoning contained in this excerpt is faulty, and it's so glaring I'm surprised the editor let it through - hasn't killed anyone yet <> is a public threat!
given that immigrant delivery workers tend to earn only around $10/hour
But I don't think your impression about the city is all that accurate to begin with. New York being the largest and highest profile US city, you hear more news about it than about other parts of the US, but you shouldn't be drawing inferences about the rest of US from the absence of news that reaches you.
NYC routinely seems to do things
In a world with global warming where many cities stated goal is to reduce vehicle miles traveled, it doesn't make sense to ban a valid mode of transportation.
Just two days Dorothy Bruns in Park Slope ran through a red light, killed a four year old and a one year old. A pregnant woman is still in critical condition. She hasn't been arrested.
Maybe the NYPD should concentrate on felonies before worrying about violations.
And I say this having grown up my entire life without a car, biking everywhere. I'd take tickets for riding on the sidewalk, and I'll do it every single day I ride. Sharing a road with 2500lb vehicles that go 2-5x my speed is unsafe and all the talking and lane marking in the world will never undo that fact. Nevermind how utterly anti-social and rude you must be to bike in a lane 20mph under the speed limit.
I spend as much time as possible in the Netherlands since they seem to be about the only sane country when it comes to mixed-mode transportation and not trying to murder people while doing so.
Making GrubHub liable for accidents also doesn’t do much. Accidents are relatively uncommon anyway and it’s probably very affordable to just eat the cost. Plus I’m not sure how GrubHub would force safer cycling even if they were incentivized to do so.
Don't worry it's not uniquely American:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-28/wa-to-introduce-minimu...
But is it asinine and destined to fail? I'm not sure.
I think that it IS possible to share the roads but only under low-traffic and low-speed conditions.
The worst offenders are cyclists on busy dual-carriageways during peak hour and it is horrendously dangerous, with two lanes of traffic forced to snake around a single cyclist.
On side streets however I don't think it's a big deal at all.
It isn't uniquely American. There's no need to make over the top claims. It undermines your points.
Also without the constant deadening roar of internal combustion, bells are fairly audible.
The background soundtrack of my time spent in Amsterdam and Copenhagen is that have bike bells ringing.
I would be thrilled if bells were in common usage.