h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Oh dear, so there are. Amazing the extent to which people have convinced themselves that speeding isn't *really* dangerous, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Interesting report on the BMI site recently: drivers think they slow down by about 20% when there are children playing on the pavement or waiting to cross, but they actually slow down by so little that they rarely even drop below the speed limit. Also, in incidents involving pedestrians and cars, the pedestrian is more likely to take avoiding action than the driver - including child pedestrians.

It really does begin to appear as if my prejudices are not prejudices at all, and large numbers of car drivers really are selfish gits who place their own momentary personal convenience above the safety of others.

A1009144 (not for review, so I'm leaving in all the first-person stuff)

Cheers!

One of the reasons for more cyclist and pedestrian accidents seems to be that cars are getting safer and safer for the ones inside with crush-zones, airbags, ABS and so on. This results in drivers being much more careless, because they themselves are pretty safe.

Maybe drivers will get more carefull if the cars are changed so that the driver will ALWAYS be injured if the car hits anything.

Like the theory that if you put a large spike on the steering wheel, accidents would go down because people would be a lot more careful.

It's probably true actually. Certainly accidents to other road users would go down.

Sprout

Guy -- the category of "selfish gits who place their own momentary personal convenience above the safety of others" includes all creatures that on earth do dwell, at least according to evolutionary theory (perhaps you don't agree with that) but in any case applying it to one sector of mankind (drivers) is perhaps not much in the way of enlightenment?

Actually they discovered the opposite. In The Netherlands there has been a law stating that in case of an accident between a car and a cyclist or pedestrian, the car was always got 100% of the blame, no matter what happened. This to more protect the weaker members in traffic. The result was that cyclists and pedestrians got much more careless, as car-drivers always had to pay up.
This could result in cyclists driving in cities with 60 km/hr through red trafficlights.

Now they are back to an investigation everytime to find the distribution of blame each time. And everyone got a bit more carefull.

Hmmm

I find it difficult to imagine the state of mind that would lead to pedestrians crossing the road thinking "I know, I'll just walk without looking, if I get run over I'll get some money"?

Surely these pedestrians and cyclists still had to 'pay' in the physical sense, in terms of injury and death? Would that not be enough to encourage care and attention? It works for me...

Sprout

There always are a few extremists. Whatever the law, the majority of the people will always to try to saty safe and unhurt.

Marjin (looks Dutch, or would if it were ij?) you say "The result was that cyclists and pedestrians got much more careless, as car-drivers always had to pay up . . . Now they are back to an investigation everytime to find the distribution of blame each time."

Can you give a cite for this?

I cannot.
This information came from memory, and I would have to dig in all kinds of papers from many months ago to get 'official' statistics and discussions.

My experience is that while some drivers will drive courteously and safely, a very large number will give you only as much consideration as is consistent with their not putting themselves out even slightly - most especially not slowing down at all. It's very much like urban speeding: all the benfit accrues to the individual driver and most of the risk falls on others, so why care? It's not as if overtaking a cyclist too close is dangerous, after all. Well, only to the cyclist, anyway, and who cares about them?

Here's a f'rinstance. The other day I was riding to work along the A4155. I was doing around 25mph. A truck was coming the other way, and a car moved over the line to scout out whether it could pass. The driver looked directly at me, pulled fully out onto my side of the road and overtook the truck, accelerating briskly towards me. I had to bail out in order to live. There was simply not enough road for a car, the truck and me - even if the closing speed had been less than the 70+mph which it was. The safe course of action was to wait. Not an option.

Here's another: today I was riding home at 18mph along a wide road with occasional pinch points (traffic islands). A car approached from behind. He started to overtake, and pulled in sharply to avoid hitting the island. Only touble was, he was only halfway past me and his technique of cutting in sharply to avoid the island left me with even less room than I'd have had if he'd just tried to squeeze through. The safe course of action was to wait just a couple of seconds. Not an option.

And another: yesterday I was riding to work along the A4155, it's a stretch with a 30 limit. I was riding at 33mph. A van overtook, into the path of oncoming traffic, and had to cut in well before he was past me (his side door was level with my elbow). Which would have been tolerable if he hadn't already been too close before he cut in. Where did it get him? To the back bumper of the car in front, which I was already catching up with. I passed both, still in the same order, in the traffic queue less than a mile further on.

I own a car, I drive it sometimes. I used to drive around 30,000 miles per year. I have a huge problem (in my car and on my bikes) with those who are so obsessed with the illusion of progress that they can't bring themselves to wait a few seconds foir a safe passing place, lest they lose one place in the next traffic queue.

And now a nice little factoid: research in New Zealand recently showed that drivers think they slow down by around a quarter to a third when there are children playing by the side of the road. Measurements showed that actually they slowed down by less than 5%, and this was not actually sufficient on average even to bring them within the speed limit. To protect their children from the motor danger (i.e. other drivers) parents now ferry them everywhere, with the result that children are succumbing in record numbers to obesity-related disorders like type II diabetes.

But since the 1930s (when cars were outnumbered on the roads by bikes and bikes by pedestrians) the focus of policy has been to drive benign modes off the roads to make them "safer" - which is a bit like making cities safer by removing everyone but the gangs and the muggers. The point is, our "safe" streets are safe only by virtue of having excluded vulnerable / benign users in huge numbers, to the extent that children and the elderly in particular no longer feel able to cross the road. Which is odd, since in accidents involving cars and pedestrians, the pedestrians take veasive action more often than the drivers.

I'm a road cyclist.

I live in Honolulu.

All for now.

Aloha.

A while back Archangel Marjin said "In The Netherlands there has been a law stating that in case of an accident between a car and a cyclist or pedestrian, the car was always got 100% of the blame, no matter what happened. This to more protect the weaker members in traffic. The result was that *cyclists and pedestrians got much more careless*, as car-drivers always had to pay up" (my asterisks).

If anyone can give me a cite for this I'd be grateful, as it is too important a statement to take on anecdotal evidence. I'm going to check with the Irish cycling campaigners and see if they know about it; we are hoping to bring in Netherlands-style laws here. (Fat chance I hear you cry.)

This is what I hear from Shane Foran of the Galway Cycling Campaign:

Liability

In 1992, the Netherlands High Court found that motorists were 50% liable for damages in the event of collisions with vulnerable road users, irrespective of whether the other party was at fault. More recently, Dutch law was changed to make motorists totally liable in the event of collisions between bicycles and cars (i). However, I understand that this is now being reviewed.

Dutch Traffic Law

Both Dutch designers and Dutch road users are operating on very different assumptions to their Irish counterparts. Dutch traffic law was formerly based on the unique assumption that slow traffic must yield to fast traffic. The Dutch operated a two-tier system of traffic legislation in which the provisions of the Vienna Conventions on Road Traffic and on Traffic Signs did not apply (ii). In the Netherlands, cyclists were required to yield to motorists unless
special signs or markings defined cyclist priority (iii). Under Dutch law, cyclists also have different rules for overtaking and turning than do other vehicle-users. This contrasts with the Irish
situation, where historically, all vehicles, including pedal cycles, operated on the basis of "first come first served", and all drivers, whether of pedal cycles or of motorised vehicles must obey the same
rules.

References

(i) Better protection for pedestrians, cyclists and passengers, Press Release of the Netherlands Ministry of Justice, 24/11/97.

(ii) Vienna Conventions on Road Traffic and on Traffic Signs, United Nations, 1968.

(iii) Safety of Vulnerable Road Users, OECD, 1997.

(Irish Law resembles UK Law, I'm fairly sure. ~R)

There is a French law that works a lot like this, dating from 1987. Car drivers are generally held to be responsible in crashes with vulnerable users, (except for negligence by the cyclist/pedestrian) and are almost always responsible where super-vulnerable road users (the elderly and children) are involved.

There have't been complaints about suicidal cyclists hurling themselves in front of cars, but there have been complaints about the rise in insurance premiums.

Sprout

Even if there are suicidal masochists, should all cyclists carry responsibility for their behaviour?

Not connected with that:~ This morning's RTE (Irish radio) news caried an item about "a cyclist" who was attacked in Dublin last night at 2 am. It seems he was pushing his bike on a walking street at the time. Does that make him a cyclist? Why didn't they call him a "right-handed person" or "a Catholic"?

When I heard "a cyclist" was attacked I thought "more reasons for the terminally scared not to cycle" -- but then this total non-sequitur.

I'm a cyclist! I have been so for 6 months. I am currently on a steep learning curve which must explain why the hills are becoming less and less difficult. After 40 years or so of bodily neglect, an urge to get back on 2 wheels and with the likehood of a largely flat ride to work I purchased a 2 wheel transporter and off I have been going for some time now, enjoying every moment. Each new hill I put down as an acheivement, believing what I was told when I first began, that whenever riding you are pedaling into the wind or you are going up a hill.
Its all fun

Gunsynd

Belated welcome, Blinding Light (would that be a Cateye Stadium 3?)

I'm a cyclist! Well I try to be, now the weather has perked up here and the cherry blossom is coming out, I try to get out om my bike as often as possible. Anyone else here a cyclist in Japan?

That looks as though it's your first post, and1245 -- in which case welcome to h2g2!

Are you in a city in Japan? What's it like to cycle there?