E-bikes under fire as fatalities climb in NYC

[Mr. Coffee]

Calm down. I don't see anyone "victim blaming", just making a general observation about rider visibility and rider safety. Not that it would have made any difference in this sad case. Accidents happen, would you support license revocation for anyone involved in a multi vehicle accident unless the other party was proven to be grossly negligent? How about bicyclists who hit pedestrians or otherwise cause an accident based on their gross negligence, what would you take away from them? Your comment about the grenade launcher is juvenile and stupid.

Agreed that the grenade launcher comment was juvenile and stupid. But the fact that we have to put on a war face to ride on a highway or in city traffic is also stupid, though not juvenile.

Also, I believe that motor vehicle operators are obligated to exercise a higher standard of care around cyclists and pedestrians because they are more vulnerable. If that accident on 395-A had been between two cars chances are everyone would have walked away with from it without serious injury. But because one of them was a cyclist they died. And cyclists who hit pedestrians, on the average, do far less harm because both mass and velocity are much smaller.

In the United States around six hundred cyclists and six thousand pedestrians die per year when having an unwanted interaction with motor vehicles. Pedestrians killed by cyclists are probably in the single digits. So I'd argue that it is logical to address the larger problem.

Why do we think it okay that people have to risk their lives to use a public road on a bicycle or when walking?

Also, what would you do about the terrorist in the F150 in Show Low? Should he ever be allowed to operate a motor vehicle again? And why?

 

[ActionJackson]

Like some European countries, I'd like to see a situation where motorists who hit cyclists are automatically considered at fault unless they can prove gross negligence by the cyclist. And also motorists who hit cyclists automatically lose their drivers license, again unless they can prove gross negligence by the cyclist.

No thanks and thankfully it won’t happen at least in the vast majority of States in the U.S.. I think what happened to the lady was a tragic accident. The driver of the vehicle will certainly be held to some measure of responsibility greater than losing his license. Probably more like prison time, if he gets convicted of vehicular manslaughter. However that doesn’t dismiss the responsibility of bike riders to ensure that they safely ride on the highways as she was. Part of that responsibility is maintaining situational awareness of the traffic around them. I’m sure she could also have seen the car bound for her, and possibly could’ve avoided it, or minimized the impact. If it were an aviation accident, like a mid-air collision, the pilots of both aircraft most likely would be found in gross error as long as their aircraft had momentum that contributed to the collision. Basically the first rule of driving anything whether it be a car, aircraft, a boat, or a bicycle is to make sure you don’t steer into something else.

 

[ActionJackson]

Why do we think it okay that people have to risk their lives to use a public road on a bicycle or when walking?

Public roads like that were built for motor vehicles, and are paid for by motor vehicle taxes and gasoline tax. Maybe they should add a $500 tax on bicycles to contribute to the road funds, and allow the governments to build the proper infrastructure?

That’s also exactly the view of the federal government, and is why you can’t legally ride a bicycle or walk along the Interstate highway system.

Also, what would you do about the terrorist in the F150 in Show Low? Should he ever be allowed to operate a motor vehicle again? And why?

Of course not. He’s a terrorist. See my other post. He should get the gas chamber should one of his victims die.

 

[mclewis1]

Actually looking over the situation described in the news report and Google maps there is nothing specific to cycling or E-Bikes. It says she was in a “designated bike lane” but that whole stretch of road has none that are marked - perhaps Nevada just designates the gravel shoulder to be a bike lane. Sure the driver appears to be at fault, but the other vehicle he collided into could’ve been a busload of children, a tractor- ltrailer, car, or a motorcycle as well. Actually I don’t think her bike was an E bike either because it doesn’t look to have a motor hub or crankset. Regardless if you look at the road conditions people should think twice before riding a bike on it. It’s her right to be in the bike lane on that road, but that doesn’t mean it’s common sense. Perhaps she wasn’t a long-term open country resident so she didn’t know what really goes on along those stretches. Especially with the speeds today. Sh*t happens ya know?

That extra wide paved shoulder is a designated bike lane. They're very common all across North America. Urban areas tend to additionally mark bike lanes but outside of the urban areas there usually isn't any additional graphics on the road.
No one said it was ebike related ... just a regular bike
"think twice before riding a bike on it." and not common sense? Really? That's the same ignorant attitude that suggests folks in small cars shouldn't be on the road because there are bigger vehicles and well "Sh*t happens ya know?"

I think most reasonably intelligent folks understand that there is some risk sharing roadways with different vehicles at different speeds ... but we need to constantly work on removing inattentive and dangerous drivers of all types from the roads.

The bike doesn’t look like it was meant for visibility either. I still wouldn’t drive on those roads though - in areas like that people do 50mph in their driveway!

You have no idea what the cyclist was wearing, that's what will determine visibility, not the narrow cross section of a road bike. Beside who cares if the SUV couldn't see the cyclist ... she wasn't run down from behind or even in the same lane, and going in the opposite direction.

If I had a mile long driveway I could comfortably and safely do 50mph in it. What's that got to do with the accident? (crossing multiple lanes and striking a vehicle going in the opposite direction).

You seem to be terrified at riding in higher speed traffic. So be it, but perhaps next time leave out the histrionics and don't suggest it's somehow inherently much more dangerous and folks aren't exercising common sense riding there. In this situation (head on collision) travelling at 50 or 35mph likely wouldn't have made a difference to a cyclist. This appears to be more about an inattentive or otherwise unsafe driver of the SUV than anything else.

 

[Mr. Coffee]

Public roads like that were built for motor vehicles, and are paid for by motor vehicle taxes and gasoline tax. Maybe they should add a $500 tax on bicycles to contribute to the road funds, and allow the governments to build the proper infrastructure?

That’s also exactly the view of the federal government, and is why you can’t legally ride a bicycle or walk along the Interstate highway system.

Actually in many states you can ride a bicycle on the interstate. Since on the interstates traffic moves in just one direction and usually shoulders are very generous it is, on the average, safer than on two-lane highways.

Non-motorized access on freeways - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Also, where do you get $500 from? The typical cyclist probably rides on the order of 2000 miles per year, so if they were driving a car that got 30mpg and you assumed $3 per gallon for fuel they would have spent $200 on fuel to go that far -- and not all or even most of fuel costs go to gasoline taxes. And when you look at the rough maintenance costs of paved bike trails they are usually around twenty percent of the per-mile costs for a highway -- I'm being generous here and the highest (per-mile) estimate I found for rail-trail maintenance was $6000 while the national average for highways was about $28000. A more realistic figure for a paved rail-trail is about $2000 per year.

From all that I'd figure a flat licensing fee of $50 is very generous and would produce a lot of bike infra. Given that there are around 50 million bicycles in the United States such a fee would produce around $2.5 billion for bike infra, which would maintain over a million miles of bike paths per year. For comparison, the existing national rail-trail system has a little less than 25000 miles of rail-trails open and about ten thousand miles being developed. The USBR system has about 14000 miles.

Your reasoning seems to be that only users who pay the highway tax have an expectation of safe passage on a public highway. That might have entertaining implications if you drive through another state but do not purchase fuel there. Yes, for some roads there is a federal fund that partially covers costs and spreads them around from the federal gas tax but still...

 

[EMGX]

Agreed that the grenade launcher comment was juvenile and stupid. But the fact that we have to put on a war face to ride on a highway or in city traffic is also stupid, though not juvenile.

Also, I believe that motor vehicle operators are obligated to exercise a higher standard of care around cyclists and pedestrians because they are more vulnerable. If that accident on 395-A had been between two cars chances are everyone would have walked away with from it without serious injury. But because one of them was a cyclist they died. And cyclists who hit pedestrians, on the average, do far less harm because both mass and velocity are much smaller.

In the United States around six hundred cyclists and six thousand pedestrians die per year when having an unwanted interaction with motor vehicles. Pedestrians killed by cyclists are probably in the single digits. So I'd argue that it is logical to address the larger problem.

Why do we think it okay that people have to risk their lives to use a public road on a bicycle or when walking?

Also, what would you do about the terrorist in the F150 in Show Low? Should he ever be allowed to operate a motor vehicle again? And why?

So, you think that penalties for committing a crime or liability in an accident should be determined by the statistical frequency of an event?
The Nevada truck driver that plowed down and killed several bike riders got 16 years (my wife thought he should have gotten life) but the bicyclist who killed a pedestrian in SF and was convicted/plead to felony vehicular manslaughter got 1000 hours of community service. To you the life of the pedestrian was considered much less important or valuable and consequences to the perpetrator less because similar crimes are uncommon and the body count is less? The man is dead, the bicyclist committed felony vehicular manslaughter - full stop.

 

[EMGX]

Public roads like that were built for motor vehicles, and are paid for by motor vehicle taxes and gasoline tax. Maybe they should add a $500 tax on bicycles to contribute to the road funds, and allow the governments to build the proper infrastructure?

That’s also exactly the view of the federal government, and is why you can’t legally ride a bicycle or walk along the Interstate highway system.

Of course not. He’s a terrorist. See my other post. He should get the gas chamber should one of his victims die.

Actually you can ride on the shoulder of some interstates, in some states and in some areas - not that it would be safe to do so though.

Freeway bike riding allowed, with exceptions

I've always been under the impression that bicycles are not allowed on freeways. But I see them occasionally along I-5 and I don't recall seeing any signs recently that say bikes are prohibited. S...

www.mailtribune.com

 

[Mr. Coffee]

So, you think that penalties for committing a crime or are liability in an accident should be determined by the frequency of an event?
The Nevada truck driver that plowed down and killed several bike riders got 16 years (my wife thought he should have gotten life) but the bicyclist who killed a pedestrian in SF and was convicted/plead to felony vehicular homicide got 1000 hours of community service. To you the life of the pedestrian was considered much less important or valuable and consequences to the perpetrator less because similar crimes are uncommon and the body count is less? The man is dead, the bicyclist committed felony vehicular manslaughter - full stop.

100% yes.

Government resources are necessarily finite and should logically be used where there is the greatest benefit. It has nothing to do with which lives I find more or less important. Just that on the average focusing on the larger problems will save more lives.

 

[EMGX]

100% yes.

Government resources are necessarily finite and should logically be used where there is the greatest benefit. It has nothing to do with which lives I find more or less important. Just that on the average focusing on the larger problems will save more lives.

That is ridiculous, repercussions can easily be made to be comparatively equal or similar based on outcomes. You sound like you are in the same camp as the felon cyclist who thinks the real crime is that he was prosecuted and according to one source stated "at least now I'd like this to be a story where I'm no longer the villain". That just advances and reinforces the opinion of many that bicyclists are self absorbed a-holes to whom rules don't apply, although the majority are not. Overall they are one of bicyclist's worst enemies.

 

[Dallant]

My own personal opinion about how we solve problems like this and make roads safer for humans is that we need to change liability rules.

Like some European countries, I'd like to see a situation where motorists who hit cyclists are automatically considered at fault unless they can prove gross negligence by the cyclist. And also motorists who hit cyclists automatically lose their drivers license, again unless they can prove gross negligence by the cyclist.

Driving on that highway shoulder, no matter the color of the bike, was not grossly negligent. And what is with all of the victim blaming here?

As much as I agree generally, “innocent until proven guilty” is pretty hard to just dump in the trash.

 

[ActionJackson]

Actually you can ride on the shoulder of some interstates, in some states and in some areas - not that it would be safe to do so though.

Thanks! That’s news to me as I’ve lived in Japan for the past 25 years. Rarely drive in the US outside of Hawaii. LMFAO thinking of a biker crossing Texas on I-10 though. I found it hard enough to do at 80mph in a rental car the last time I flew out of Houston!

 

[Art Deco]

Can't find the link, but a few years ago a woman crossed Texas on a unicycle. I don't understand why, other than 15 minutes of fame, but I am sure it was a miserable trip.

 

[Mr. Coffee]

That is ridiculous, repercussions can easily be made to be comparatively equal or similar based on outcomes. You sound like you are in the same camp as the felon cyclist who thinks the real crime is that he was prosecuted and according to one source stated "at least now I'd like this to be a story where I'm no longer the villain". That just advances and reinforces the opinion of many that bicyclists are self absorbed a-holes to whom rules don't apply, although the majority are not. Overall they are one of bicyclist's worst enemies.

I am sorry, it seems you are reading something from my opinions that are not there.

 

[ActionJackson]

You seem to be terrified at riding in higher speed traffic. So be it, but perhaps next time leave out the histrionics and don't suggest it's somehow inherently much more dangerous and folks aren't exercising common sense riding there

Hmmmm, I’ve flown all kinds of planes and sailed on all kinds of boats, done more than a few hairball combat sorties whacking moles too, and still I find riding a bike on an open roadway relatively more terrifying as opposed to relaxing or improving my health. Yes indeed.

I bet that woman’s husband won’t allow their children to do that either, as well as the relatives of the other 800 or so who die on a bicycle this year.

And speaking of that woman, the company she was employed at, and her hubby co-founded , is now under federal investigation for needless deaths related to its self driving motor vehicle. Imagine the irony.

 

[ActionJackson]

A few years ago a woman crossed Texas on a unicycle ……….. I am sure it was a miserable trip.

Hahahaha- it doesn’t even need a punch line

 

[PedalUma]

I can understand the concept of automatic fault assumption. We do this with drunk drivers. When something A collides with something B and something A weights 99.9% more it is that much more a contributor on its face.

Was that an electric unicycle?

If I were a disabled to the extent that I was unable to ride a bike or an eTrike, I would want more people on bikes of all types when crossing town. From a purely selfish perspective, if that reduced the number of cars in front of me, blocking my progress and causing congestion and gridlock, it would be to my advantage to have more bikes and less cars. If bike lanes were away from cars so much the better for me. Yes, the gas tax does provide highway funding and electric cars such as the Tesla use these same highways as do bikes and the buggies of the plain people which clearly do not use fossil fuels. We are all advantaged by modes of transportation which do not negatively impact the air we each breathe. This is most significant in dense areas such as NYC where one stinky gross polluter among us gets into the lungs of thousands. I am so glad that I am not stuck in a truck. I am liberated on a bike. eBikes are bikes first and just a sub-category of bikes. That is why everything relevant to bikes is applicable to electric bikes.

 

[antboy]

I’d agree with that. If he was headed south in the morning he would have a mid rising sun in his eyes too. The bike doesn’t look like it was meant for visibility either. I still wouldn’t drive on those roads though - in areas like that people do 50mph in their driveway!

The time of day makes a big difference, IMHO. I'm extra paranoid when riding in "high glare" situations like that.

 

[Art Deco]

I can understand the concept of automatic fault assumption. We do this with drunk drivers. When something A collides with something B and something A weights 99.9% more it is that much more a contributor on its face.

Was that an electric unicycle?

BIG SNIP

Well, it was certainly a middrive....Irony.

 

[BEC111]

Back on topic with NYC. If a detail of police such as the mounted police were on eBikes they would be in the mix and flow at street level. Just knowing that there were these police would have a chilling affect on bad behavior. It would provide huge mobility advantages over patrol cars. They could go through plazas and parks, get ahead of gridlock to an active seen to stabilize a situation or to direct traffic. Jumping curbs and cutting down a sidewalk when needed to arrive as first responders. Back up cars could have spare batteries and charging ports in support. NYC could do a low cost pilot program to see how it works in Central Park. It is easier to park a bike than a car or horse. And they cost less per mile.

NYC has many bicycle mounted cops. They are frequently in high tourist areas that now mostly automobile-less. Also in the parks. The large ones, such as Central Park, are also carless. Unfortunately, I mostly saw them hanging around. Not riding. (I moved away from NYC a few years ago.)

 

[ActionJackson]

Was that an electric unicycle?

That exists in Japan at least: