I think that a cyclist flaunting traffic laws should always be liable for accidents, but the last thing we need if we want to encourage bicycling is nanny-state policing of proper signaling and such. Any city that has resources for this ought to take a hard look at the size of their police force.
Your idea of banning cycle traffic on >25mph roads is misguided. Most cyclists have no trouble traveling at a speed greater than 25mph, even uphill.
>Most cyclists have no trouble traveling at a speed greater than 25mph, even uphill
I doubt that, maybe in burst/sprint but not sustained...Hell, the average top speeds in the Tour de France during the sprints is barely 25mph and those are top athletes.
>but the last thing we need if we want to encourage bicycling is nanny-state policing of proper signaling and such.
So we should enforce traffic laws on cars but not on bicycles? That's fairly myopic...
Be negligent on a bicycle and a vast majority of the life and limb you are risking is your own. Be negligent in a car and you're putting in mortal danger every other driver and cyclist on the road as well as every pedestrian in the vicinity. The difference between 25lb of metal powered by glutes and quads and 1.5 tons of metal with a tank of flammable liquid and a 200 hp engine is important.
Your point being? Driving or biking on the road makes you a vehicle, all vehicles follow the same set of laws. I don't care if your "I'm a bicyclist" superiority complex makes you think you're above the law; you're not.
According to the laws of California, driving or biking makes you a "driver", but does not make the bike a "vehicle", it's a "device". You are still subject to the laws of the road, though.
> Be negligent on a bicycle and a vast majority of the life and limb you are risking is your own.
I don't think that's true. I haven't personally witnessed any accidents, and I admittedly don't have any data to cite, but I have witnessed many bicyclists cause complete chaos in busy traffic.
You're right, there are lots of slow cyclists who seldom top 15mph. Nevertheless, the speed limit is a speed limit, and if I can manage 25mph on a 35mph road, I don't see the issue. Mixed-use roads that see cyclists clogging traffic should provide simple painted bike lanes if nothing else.
So we should enforce traffic laws on cars but not on
bicycles? That's fairly myopic...
Fewer than 1000 people die in bicycle accidents a year. It is just not comparable to the danger of auto transport.
Most non-freeway roads don't have minimum speed limits, but I think they should. Based on my own experience, one of the most important factors for road safety is the homogeneity of speed. Having cars (or bikes) going faster or slower than the average flow of traffic have caused the vast majority of congestion and safety problems I have witnessed.
True, but that's a silly assertion. Cars by themselves are pretty safe. It's the other cars that cause problems. Since the cars are there, biking is more dangerous than being in another car.
If it's not comparable, why are you complaining? Why should I have to respect you more than a car if you're not at any real risk of death? Seems like more effort than its worth, after all I don't really value your life at anything over 0.
Fewer than 2000 people die in plane crashes every year, despite the millions who fly. So I suppose we shouldn't make them follow any rules or safety procedures either, I mean it isn't as if those rules have prevented any deaths. Right?
This is a disgusting perspective, and you clearly have never ridden a bicycle significantly for practical transportation or else you might be able to relate to some of the comments from myself and other cyclists in this thread.
You should respect me because I am exposed, riding a machine with few to no safety devices. It's the same reason I drive particularly carefully around motorcyclists. I do respect them more, so to speak, because they are at far greater risk on the road than car drivers. I want to see that they reach their destination safely, and I know the odds are stacked against them by distracted or arrogant drivers.
These numbers are a little off. Most commuters are going to scoot along in the 8-12 mph range. People riding for exercise or training for a sport are going to get up near 20 mph. Amateur bike races will hold sustained speeds of 24-30 mph for a few hours (depending on the terrain). In the TdF this year the fastest team in the time trial averaged 35 mph for 25 min. TdF sprinters can hit 50 mph and 70 mph on mountain descents.
No, laws that are appropriate for cars may not be appropriate for bicycles. Stop signs, for example. There is no justification for requiring bicyclists to come to a complete stop to safely cross an intersection. (There isn't for cars, either, but that's a separate issue.)
No, you don't get to have it both ways. I have routinely seen bikes dash through stop signs and lights when they don't have right of way. On more than one occasion of seen said cyclist get injured; the person driving the car gets blamed despite the bicyclist breaking the law. This is entirely unacceptable and dangerous, I don't care if you don't think the laws make sense every vehicle has to follow them.
Average speed for the front runners in the Tour de France on an average stage is usually around 25mph, and that's with some gruesome hill climbs. On the faster stages, average speeds can reach 35mph.
Sprints often hit 40mph, and on downhill stretches are known to exceed 60mph.
I commute 7.5 miles into central London daily where the roads really were originally built around the horse and cart and usually manage ~22mph average if the traffic isn't so bad and I catch the lights right.
Perhaps you are correct, and average bicyclists have no trouble traveling at speeds greater than 25 mph, but for some reason they rarely choose to exercise that ability. 10-15 mph seems to be more usual, and 5 mph is not uncommon here in hilly Seattle. Maybe they get going out on the Burke-Gilman bike trail, but they certainly aren't going anything like 25 mph on the streets I share with them.
It's pretty obvious when a bicyclist is at fault and they are often held responsible when they cause an accident. In the case of most city accidents, police routinely pull video from nearby buildings to establish fault.
In fact, just this morning a lady got hit and put in the ICU at the corner of King St and 3rd in San Francisco, right near the ballpark. Yolanda, the lady who manages the front desk, was reviewing the tapes with the police after the accident. That's the second serious accident involving a pedestrian or bicyclist at that intersection since the beginning of the year. TBH, the speed limit in SoMa needs to be dropped to 25 mph. People drive far too fast in this neighborhood for it to be safe for either bicyclists or pedestrians.
> It's pretty obvious when a bicyclist is at fault and they are often held responsible when they cause an accident. In the case of most city accidents, police routinely pull video from nearby buildings to establish fault.
This is completely untrue, at least in NYC.
"Historically, nearly half of motorists who kill a New York City pedestrian or cyclist do not receive so much as a citation for careless driving."
I was responding to the idea that it is obvious who is at fault, when in fact the bicyclist is usually blamed. (Yes, my insinuation is that the bicyclist is not usually at fault.)
As for "police routinely pull video ... to establish fault" -- this is just one example, but recently in DC there was a bike-and-car crash in which a surveillance video proved the cyclist was not at fault, but the police refused to even look at it: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/19284/it-must-have-...
25 mph up a hill is fast, but the tour de France is a silly comparison, they sustain those speeds for 4 hours at a time, commuters aren't going to do that. Commuters also rarely face anything resembling the climbs in the tour.
True but on the other side most commuters aren't going for speed, or using great bikes, or proper shoes so I think the expectation would be that the tour de france winner would still average a much faster time than a commuter.
Your idea of banning cycle traffic on >25mph roads is misguided. Most cyclists have no trouble traveling at a speed greater than 25mph, even uphill.