As many of you have heard, a few nights ago a 29-year old woman riding her bicycle downtown was struck and killed by a truck. Several weeks ago, an 11-year old boy in Vancouver was struck and killed by a C-TRAN bus. The response in more than a few media sources was “oh dear, urban cycling is unsafe”.
That observation I don’t necessarily have a problem with. Riding a bike amongst a large number of two-ton (or twenty-ton) hunks of steel, many of which are traveling at high speeds, is a risky endeavor. Lots of things in life are unsafe. Being a pedestrian along a busy street is unsafe, as is riding in a car. As is sitting at a desk or on a couch, doing nothing.
What I do have a problem is the claim that because these things are unsafe, they shouldn’t be done–especially from sources who then turn around an oppose projects that seek to make cycling safer.
It’s a kind of Catch-22. And while I don’t normally like to inject sexual politics into this blog, it reminds me of certain religious fundamentalists who insist upon abstinence because premarital sex is unsafe–then turn around and oppose things like contraceptives or the HPV vaccine, because they would hypothetically make sex less unsafe and encourage more of it.
Generally, when you hear this sort of argument, you can rest assured that the safety of bicyclists isn’t the speaker’s prime concern–their concern is that they, for whatever reason, don’t like bicycles on the roads on the first place. People really concerned about bicycle safety would look for ways to improve the urban environment for bicycles and their riders–even if it were simple things like just slowing traffic down, as opposed to cycle tracks and the like–and not use danger as an excuse to tell the bikes to stay at home.
30 responses to “The catch-22 of bicycle safety”
I immediately went on the offensive and brought up this discussion on several forums:
http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/cyclists-and-pedestrians-keep-getting-killed-trucks-when-solution-easy-mandatory-side-guards.html
Some have criticized this, saying “It’s too soon”. Why is it acceptable to conclude that cycling is dangerous, but not acceptable to conclude that we have created a dangerous environment for humans? When an incident highlights an unsafe situation, you spring into action to ensure that it doesn’t happen again. We don’t need a mourning period before we start saving lives.
I immediately went on the offensive and brought up this discussion on several forums:
http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/cyclists-and-pedestrians-keep-getting-killed-trucks-when-solution-easy-mandatory-side-guards.html
Some have criticized this, saying “It’s too soon”. Why is it acceptable to conclude that cycling is dangerous, but not acceptable to conclude that we have created a dangerous environment for humans? When an incident highlights an unsafe situation, you spring into action to ensure that it doesn’t happen again. We don’t need a mourning period before we start saving lives.
Urban cycling IS unsafe, and I absolutely won’t do it. At least as a pedestrian, I have a sidewalk in most cases; also traffic signals and crosswalks. Plus, being vigilant.
I can’t imagine that as a teenager, I rode a bike amongst the traffic in Brooklyn, NY. Yikes!
“Urban cycling IS unsafe, and I absolutely won’t do it”
Then I hope you don’t ride in automobiles either, as they kill over 30,000 people every year in the USA alone….
“At least as a pedestrian, I have a sidewalk in most cases;”
Autos jump the curb all the time. Heck, people have been killed by auto drivers while they were *inside* banks, schools, and convenience stores.
“also traffic signals and crosswalks”
You have those things because we built them. If we hadn’t built them then you would not be able to say they improved your safety, then someone could come along and say that walking was dangerous and that we shouldn’t walk and since we shouldn’t walk we shouldn’t build signals and crosswalks.
“Plus, being vigilant.”
Sure. Cyclists can be vigilant too. However won’t help when many tons of steel comes barreling toward you from a completely unexpected angle.
Just hit youtube and watch all the cases where pedestrians in crosswalks, on sidewalks, and supposedly out-of-harms-way get killed or nearly (by inches) killed.
It is a sad testament to humankind that we even have this discussion. At some point in time a multi-ton hunk of steel and plastic took a higher status than a human life. As a society we worship the automobile – keep those darn human beings off of our streets, streets are for cars!
How absurd is that? When a pedestrian or cyclist is killed the invariable response is “they shouldn’t have been there”.
If toaster ovens killed 30,000 people a year you can be damn sure the toaster oven would be seriously regulated if not outright banned all together.
But every time someone tries to tell someone in a car to slow down or to share the road it’s like we are stealing their first-born.
If a business’ sign falls off a building and kills someone its “That business is responsible, the sign never should have fallen”. But if a business’ truck runs over someone its “That person should not be in the way of the truck.” What is it about cars that is so important?
It has been statistically proven over and over and over. If we make the built environment safer for pedestrians and cyclists it gets safer for motorists too. Everyone wins!
At least as a pedestrian, I am not in not in the roadway itself with the motor vehicles! That’s a big reason why cycling is inherently dangerous.
Urban cycling seems plenty safe to me. Giant big rigs with trailers downtown are not safe.
It seems like most of the recent deaths are due to huge vehicles.
It’s one thing to say “cycling is dangerous, and I won’t do it”, and be speaking for yourself. Everyone has to make their own decisions as to what level of risk they consider appropriate–I don’t prefer to go jumping out of perfectly good airplanes, for instance, but many people love parachuting.
It’s another to say that “cycling is dangerous, nobody should do it”. And it’s downright silly to say “cycling is dangerous, therefore we shouldn’t try to make it safer”. Many of the ways that we try to make biking safer INVOLVE getting bikes out of the roadway–you can view bike lanes or cycle-tracks as “sidewalks for bicycles”, if you like.
Pedestrians are not “in the roadway”, but on many streets, they are only a few feet from the passing cars. And that 4″ curb ain’t going to protect you one bit if a car veers off the street.
I’m not sure I like the following argument but I do think it is relevant to the discussion. Of course if the bicycling is offsetting some other form of exercise, I can imagine this argument being slightly overstated
Health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks. “The gain of ‘life years’ through improved fitness among regular cyclists, and thus their increased longevity exceeds the loss of ‘life years’ in cycle fatalities. (British Medical Association, 1992) An analysis based on the life expectancy of each cyclist killed in road accidents using actuarial data, and the increased longevity of those engaging in exercise regimes several times a week compared with those leading relatively sedentary lives, has shown that, even in the current cycle hostile environment, the benefits in terms of life years gained, outweigh life years lost in cycling fatalities by a factor of around 20 to 1.” — Mayer Hillman, Senior Fellow Emeritus, Policy Studies Institute, and British Medical Association researcher (7, 8)
I was walking on the sidewalk this morning on nw 18th , I noted the car coming toward me on the one way was street slamming on her brakes in the middle of the block with a look of terror on her face. I turned behind me to see a pick-up coming toward her and swerving through the bike lane and on to the sidewalk RIGHT AT ME. I jumped into the 6ft fence and waved both arms over my head to get the attention of the fool who had apparently gone the wrong way up the one way street.
He was so busy avoiding the cars that he thought nothing of driving thru the bike lane and up onto the sidewalk WITH ME ON IT. So Nick , you are not safe on the sidewalk OR in a bike lane.
a 3,000 lb metal box in the wrong hands will kill any of us.
Speaking of which, I wish more Portlanders would use their horns in situations like that. We’re too polite with the idiots on our roads
One unfortunate thing about American motoring culture is that many motorists in the US view a honked horn as an insult or a challenge, not as a warning. (And unfortunately, many motorists USE their horns to express outrage or indignation, not to warn of a hazard).
Honking horns often produces flipped birds in response. Occasionally it provokes a more violent response.
As an aside–while bicycles are required to be equipped with bells or other auditory warning devices, these are generally too quiet to be heard from inside a motor vehicle. Which prompted somebody to come up with this contraption.
Allan,
I liberally use my horn to call out people doing dangerous/illegal things on the road. People are way too polite here, and they allow these actions to continue.
The Oregonian has more on this past week’s accident.
Perhaps we should have rules on how sound-insulated the inside of a car can be to keep drivers alert to their surroundings? Or just patiently await the self-driving car. Car horns are their own ‘loudness-war’ of sorts.
The cycling community is mobilizing in response to the latest tragedy.
Chris I: “I liberally use my horn to call out people doing dangerous/illegal things on the road. People are way too polite here, and they allow these actions to continue.)”
I don’t think they even understand what a horn is supposed to do. As part of a defensive driving attitude it is essential, and using it doesn’t mean you are flying into rage. An ounce of prevention….
From the bta article: “There have been many calls for repealing the mandatory sidepath law (ORS 814.420) even before Rickson’s death. Now I’d be surprised if it wasn’t the BTA’s top priority in the 2013 legislative session.”
Seems like that has been a reasonable compromise, why repeal it? Cycling is technically an athletic sport and there is always danger.
Our road repair costs are way too high and bicycling would be a more cost effective solution, for individuals anyway. But the $600 million plan from City Hall for bike routes? There might not be a way to provide the shortest routes, but I’ll bet there are a number of under used pathways around that could be paved, for far less total cost..
Also if any major new roadway were to go in, no doubt there would be some provision for cyclists. And to get a plug in for the Third Bridge crossing, I would say that developing a much shorter route through NW Portland, would also make cycling and transit more attractive, at the same time.
Does anybody have the stats on accidents in Europe?
As far as I am concerned, cycling in Portland is inherently dangerous.
If ‘they’ wanted to make it safe they would have roads dedicated to bikes/pedestrians.
Portland is a city, cities are dangerous because they are compact with lots of people and machines.
When I first moved here I used to bike around NW Portland, I never felt safe and I stayed off all the main roads.
My bike got stolen and I never bought another one because I thought it was too dangerous to even bother with.
What is the convention for cyclists riding beside a truck? Suppose you’re riding a bike in the bike lane, moving at roughly the same speed as traffic. In the lane to your left is a large truck, from your position you cannot see the turn indicators. You are approaching an intersection where a right turn is possible. What should you do?
From what I understand in this situation, the truck (or any vehicle) turning across the bike lane has the duty to yield to any bikes in the lane, unless traffic control devices say otherwise.
That probably doesn’t answer bjcefola’s question, which seems more geared towards “how does a bike in that situation avoid getting killed” as opposed to “who has the legal right-of-way”. In general, what’s good advice for motorists (look before you enter the intersection, even if the light is green) is good advice for bicyclists, or anyone else using the roads.
A question for Al, or for any current or former CDL holders on this forum: What level of (re)-certification and training is required to maintain a commercial drivers’ license (presently in good standing)? For a standard DL, you’ve got to pass the written and behind-the-wheel tests to get your initial license, and then you’re pretty much good to go unless you screw up or get sufficiently old. Are professional drivers expected or required to “stay current” on newer developments in traffic safety and vehicle technology, much in the same way that accountants, doctors, and other white-collar professionals are expected to “stay current” in their fields (as well as many blue-collar professionals in the building trades, such as electricians)?
Looking at this page, it appears the answer is mostly “no”, with the exception of those certified for HAZMAT driving. Otherwise, the main requirement for renewing a CDL not required for a private driver’s license is medical certification. But I’m not a CDL holder, and don’t consider it likely I’ll acquire expertise on the subject by browsing the DMV website, which is why I’m asking. :)
I asked because I doubt there is an established answer. Maybe there should be one? A robust system doesn’t depend on one variable (especially a variable with big blind spots), it has multiple independent checks. Why shouldn’t one of those checks be within the purview of the cyclist?
I wrote, then fortunately was persuaded not to post, a blog piece complaining about the language I saw from the BTA, Mayor Adams and others, embracing the Vision-Zero concept that “one death is too many” and that we should try to ensure that a horrific event like Wednesday’s should be prevented “from ever happening again.”
That sort of black/white language horrifies me. To me, it exists in the same world as the claims Scotty rejects: that the only acceptable level of safety is Absolute Safety. A city in which we could guarantee that a person will never die on the road is not, I think, a city that I’d ever want to live in. It’d be a city that worships death more than it worships life.
I’ve been picking my way around this question for a couple years, and hope to find a way to write about it eventually. I talked to a few people about it at last night’s gathering. If anyone here has thoughts about this, I’d love to hear them.
I can’t know who said it first… but if we wanted absolute safety on the road, we’d outlaw all vehicles other than tricycles.
bjcefola,
You should either accelerate to get in front of the truck, or slow down so you are behind it. If this is not possible, you prepare to dive onto the sidewalk to second you see the front of the truck begin to turn.
“What is the convention for cyclists riding beside a truck? Suppose you’re riding a bike in the bike lane, moving at roughly the same speed as traffic. In the lane to your left is a large truck, from your position you cannot see the turn indicators. You are approaching an intersection where a right turn is possible. What should you do?”
Try to make sure the driver sees you and then be very nimble?
“I can’t know who said it first… but if we wanted absolute safety on the road, we’d outlaw all vehicles other than tricycles.”
I guess there would be a way to mix cement by some other means than a cement truck. However to build fireproof and soundproof high rises generally cement floors are the best solution :)
Back to a serious note; it would be good to give cyclists some separated paths. But I think these can be incorporated into some new routes that also reduce VMT for motor vehicles. That would help METRO achieve its goal of lower green house gases and other pollution. There are a lot of solutions to the motor vehicle emissions problems and probably the noise problems will be next. Check out greencarcongress.com for hundreds of stories on technical innovation. Ford is pushing the limits of fuel economy way up; with 70 mpg claims for their Europe-based Fiesta model, and that’s without hybrid tech. Of course, 40 mpg seems to be the limit in the states for Ford, except for the all electric Focus ($40,000) but Chevy Cruze is supposed to have a 50 mpg diesel this fall.
Anyone know of any drawback to a diesel/electric hybrid in autos?
Saw the news story of this on KPTV. It was very sad to hear her little girl talk about this. My heart goes out to the family…
just as an fyi it is illegal in oregon to put a horn on a bike, it is an unnecessary law, but I doubt it gets changed.
Urban cycling IS safe. I’ve been doing it for over 10 years.
In that time, I have been involved in 2 car accidents (while driving – was hit by other drivers), and 0 bicycle accidents. Well, falling off my bike drunk in my own backyard probably doesn’t count, anyways.
“their concern is that they, for whatever reason, don’t like bicycles on the roads on the first place.”
I know that this is true (and an unspoken undercurrent of certain bike arguments), but what I’ve never been able to understand is why: Why don’t people want bicycles on the road? Why does it seem to bother people so much? What does it matter?
I know that this is true (and an unspoken undercurrent of certain bike arguments), but what I’ve never been able to understand is why: Why don’t people want bicycles on the road? Why does it seem to bother people so much? What does it matter?
Some people view bikes as an obstacle and a nuisance to driving.
Some people don’t like the various biking subcultures–whether they be smug hipsters, dirty hippies, or whatever.
Some people may have other reasons than that.
I think a lot of drivers (me included, when I’m behind a wheel) are afraid that they’re going to do something wrong while driving and hurt somebody on a bike.
To put it crudely, many drivers perceive this risk to their well-being (via grief, guilt, lawsuit, etc.) as a greater cost than the offsetting benefits of bicycling to the society at large.
I think this is also why “safety” tends to be the most politically successful way to sell bike improvements to people who don’t ride bikes themselves.