"Wheels of Misfortune" in the NYT

[dkel]

@Steve O 164115 wrote:

Perhaps, but since it’s about 1000 times more likely a pedestrian will be killed by a person driving a car than a person riding a bike, there should probably be a similar ratio of attention paid to that. I’d be surprised to see 1000 opinion articles show up in the NY Times regarding a pedestrian being killed by a car driver before the next one about a pedestrian being killed by a bicyclist. In fact, I can’t recall any op-eds discussing the former. 2-3 pedestrians are killed every week, on average, in the DC area by drivers. They barely blip on the inside of the Metro section.

And any op-ed about the dangers of cars to cyclists and pedestrians would likely be construed as a “war on cars.” I agree with the article from the OP that the danger of cyclists injuring pedestrians shouldn’t be ignored; I’m troubled that the far greater risk from cars is treated as normative, if not altogether acceptable.

[AFHokie]

@bobco85 164091 wrote:

From reading the article, it seems that the author was pretty neutral towards cyclist behavior until it hit home with their mother getting killed by a cyclist. Only after that did the author realize that cyclists can and sometimes do create danger for pedestrians.

It’s like how we cyclists don’t always realize the effects that our decisions can have on other trail-users until we go for a walk/run on a trail. Until one gets passed too closely, sees close calls between aggressive/oblivious cyclists, or sees a crash or its aftermath, it can be difficult to understand the danger to others.

Just like drivers can have a windshield perspective, I think cyclists can have a handlebar perspective.

@Judd 164095 wrote:

I’ve actually taken to checking out some of the places that I bike frequently by car, just to get the motorist perspective of intersections and trail crossings. I think it’s helpful, particularly in understanding that some “bad” driver behavior is a influenced by the infrastructure, particularly bad sight lines.

@Emm 164097 wrote:

THIS. There were 2 intersections in Alexandria I used to struggle with on a bike–I used to have a ton of close calls on them. I drove through them once or twice while running errands and realized it wasn’t that the drivers were TRYING to hit me, it was that they really had terrible sight lines, and couldn’t see bikes coming until much too close for comfort. Checking this out by car got me to slow wayyy down at those intersections, and gave me a better ability to predict what drivers approaching the intersection would do, and why.

On the other end of the spectrum was when a driver who almost hit me and swore it was because he had no sight lines and couldn’t see me. I went back and drove through the intersection going his route. You could see a few hundred yards in either direction, even from my tiny little Focus. 😡

ALL OF THE ABOVE. I’ve said for years that if you never experience your bike route by car/foot then you can’t really understand what creates any of the poor encounters. It’s not always a jackass behind the wheel. Occasionally you may realize its actually your behavior that needs to change due to the environment/circumstances. I’m certain most drivers would pass cyclists much differently if they spent a few days a year on a bike and suspect more than a few cyclists would change their behavior as well if they understood what they were doing looked like from a driver/ped perspective.

@Judd 164103 wrote:

someone who was recently murdered by another person that negligently operated a bicycle

No. Just no. By definition murder requires proof of premeditation and by using it implies a sinister aspect that does not exist. Negligently operating a bicycle is reckless and certainly falls within various definitions of negligence/involuntary manslaughter, however it is not murder. Or do you honestly believe in any way the cyclist intended to kill someone when disregarding the red light?

[Author]

Posts