Someone gets killed by a car, so they restrict e-bikes.
Someone gets killed by a car, so they restrict e-bikes.
The Oregon Senate passed a bill updating laws around electric bicycles on Monday. It's named for a Bend teen killed in a collision while riding an e-bike last summer.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/13118199
(Title shamelessly stolen from this comment in the crossposted !micromobility thread.)
You're viewing a single thread.
The problem isn't the class of the electric bike.
Riding on the sidewalk is extremely dangerous. Drivers will often turn (without signalling even) and not notice a bicycle coming up from behind them on a sidewalk. Driver also often back out of driveways without being able to see a bike approaching on a sidewalk.
Cyclists should be taught how to ride safely on the road and use all of the proper safety equipment.
I've commuted by bike for years and frequently shake my head when I see the behavior of other cyclists.
People ride on the sidewalks for a simple reason: the roads do not feel safe enough for riding for them, because there are car drivers there behaving in a manner lethal to non-car drivers (and other drivers too fwiw).
All solutions begin with taking the lethal actor out of the equation. Anything else is needless victim blaming and can be dismissed without any more discussion.
I used to cycle on the sidewalk, but my town started enforcing cycling in the bicycle gutter instead. I did that for a while, but then I got hit and run by a car. As a 16 year old. I don't ride my bike anymore unless it's a trail or something.
You can be both a victim AND an abuser. Being a victim does not excuse your actions that put OTHER PEOPLE at risk.
I don't disagree that roads can feel unsafe. But there's an important detail about sidewalk riding: you can be traveling against the direction of traffic. This is demonstrably dangerous at any kind of lot entry or any time cars can traverse the sidewalk path, because there should not be vehicle traffic moving in a different direction.
So I'd say both parts are true. Bikers may feel unsafe and may be unsafe on congested roads (or especially roads without dedicated bike paths), but riding on sidewalks is actually demonstrably unsafe for the biker (not to mention unsafe for anyone walking on the sidewalk).
This is demonstrably dangerous at any kind of lot entry or any time cars can traverse the sidewalk path, because there should not be vehicle traffic moving in a different direction.
It depends on the sidewalks. They should be on a different grade, and separated from the road by some distance. Although part of the problem is that SUVs jump kerbs more easily, and this type of "car" has become dominant in recent years.
While "it depends," overall we have undeniable statistical data that a km on a sidewalk is on average more dangerous than a km on the road.
They should be on a different grade
This doesn't apply to parking entrances or other areas where cars are expected to cross the sidewalk, which is the specific portion of that point.
And the bigger point in my view is pedestrians. I don't believe that pedestrians should need to deal with bikers on the sidewalk. It's called a sidewalk for a reason. Walk the bike.
I understand bikers being upset about unsafe road conditions, but lessening safety of sidewalks for pedestrians is not the answer.
All of these issues are systemic issues and a failure of infrastructure. It's fine on an individual level to say that riding on footpaths isn't ideal, but ultimately people are going to do it no matter how much you call them out for it, if they feel it's the safer option than riding on the road. So if you don't give people a safe option to ride their bikes, then they are going to have to pick between multiple unsafe options, which is not ideal when you are trying to drive an uptake in cycling. And the most important way to make cycling and walking safer, is to increase their popularity, because it means there are less cars, and cars are a much more serious threat to pedestrians.
Anyway, we are probably talking past each other a bit. I think that in the end you are talking about sensible individual choices (which is fine), but I feel that the majority of efforts and discussion need to be directed at governments if we want to make cycling so safe that even a 5 year can ride around unsupervised.
Cyclists should have safe infrastructure instead of riding with vehicle traffic. Don't try to shift the responsibility.
I'm saying that as an experienced cyclist as well.
Not having safe infrastructure doesn't make bikers any less dangerous to be around. My specific citation is the bay area, other places I've lived have not had the sheer quantity of bikers (and drivers) with a death wish/complete lack of spatial awareness.
Cyclists are more likely to die on the sidewalk than sharing the road. Given the choice, use the road 99% of the time.
Any sources to support your claim?
I dunno, the sidewalk on the six lane stroad near me seems much safer than the fast, congested road with lane-hopping cars and low visibility.
I get it, and I use sidewalks sparingly, but it really is circumstantial (it's legal to ride a footpath where I live). For example, slow riding a footpath is much safer than fast riding a footpath because you have more time to react to cars entering/exiting driveways. If you're riding somewhere nearby that's actually quite a nice experience. But if you are trying to get somewhere more than a kilometre away, slow footpath riding would obviously slow you down a lot.
I think we really should enforce backing into spaces. As you apoproach the spot/driveway you can confirm it is clear then safely back in. When you go to leave again you have better visbility than if you pulled in and have to back out.
Anyone who says they arent comfortable enough backing into a space shouldn't be driving.
It’s so easy to back into spaces now with rear view cameras as standard. Always surprises me that more people don’t do it
I hear so many people say people are dumb for backing into spaces, it makes me want to back into spaces more 😈
Who says this and what is their reasoning? I've heard some people say it takes too long, but if you didnt back in you gotta back out which can take longer anyway.
How many people are commonly backing into spaces? I think the people I’ve seen or heard, online or otherwise, have just been the same people that don’t want to bother backing into spaces. I don’t think their logic is very sound, it’s just about thinking they’re wasting time probably.
In my experience most people who back in have experience driving vehicles with restricted rear visbility like cargo or work vans. I know driving those is what did it for me.
My favourite example is driving one of those vans into a self serve car wash. It will be way harder to back out of one than into one because the vans have no rear window and you cannot see past the building. Backing in is much safer and easier in this case and i think it would be reasonable for car wash owners to have signs requesting all customers back in. They can be busy places with pedestrians around.
It's pretty annoying when people use ambiguous or no signaling (you cant claim the last spot before a right turn by turning on your signal) in bumper to bumper traffic and expect people to make space is one problem.
From a bias perspective assholes in pickup trucks or sports cars that always take multiple spots always back in, so there may be some leftover negative associations, at least for me.
I don't understand how this is not common sense. If I'm not able to back in, I should probably not go in there. I can't think of anything more stressful than backing out of a driveway and onto incoming traffic that I might not be able to see.
No. Just no.
What cyclists need is dedicated infrastructure. Take it away from the car infrastructure, there is so so so so so too much car infrastructure already, convert it into much cheaper cycle infrastructure instead. Add more Public transportation infrastructure while we're at it. THAT will make it safer, not just blaming cyclists anyway
Take an example from the Netherlands.
I started riding on the road and was promptly rewarded with a nail in my tire. I'll stick to my area's multi use path.
Though admittedly if the speed limit and design limit are is 35mph or less I don't mind the road since I'm on an ebike.
To be fair, I've been rewarded more than once with a nail in my tire for driving my car on the road too.
But agree, it sucks and is good reason to use multiuse paths where they exist.
I see so many inexperienced or uneducated cyclists in my city, I almost want to make some sort of "safe cycling" video tutorial. Stuff like not riding on sidewalks (especially on stroads), Idaho stops, how to navigate intersections safely, when to take the lane, how to find routes that are safer for cycling rather than just using the route you'd take in a car, etc.
I actually feel safer on my bike than as a pedestrian in my city, but people don't know the basics of safe cycling and get frightened by all the close calls they get when/if they try cycling. They then proceed to never cycle again because it's "dangerous", when really most of the danger can be avoided with smart, conscious riding.
I think that anyone who bicycles around motor vehicles is going to have a frightening moment or close call at some point. Riding on roads where one feels most comfortable will hopefully help keep them riding, and when they feel comfortable and experienced enough, move to more “active” roads.
There’s a road where I live that’s 25mph speed limit, very busy with cars, pedestrians, shops, intersections, crosswalks, and lots of people looking for on street parking. I’ve been cycling for years and that road still requires ALL of my attention and lightning reflexes to navigate safely.
I've been cycling on the road for a good 25+ years at this point... and sorry but, you're full of shit. No matter what I do to "cycle safely", I still get close passed, cut off, left hooked, raged at for taking the lane (as is safe to do so)... The issue isn't my cycling, its the cars and the idiots driving them.
Yep, was at a 4 way stop the other day, let 2 cars go through the intersection, go myself and nearly get run over and the driver tried to tell me to wait my turn. Old fuck never even looked. I'm 6'0" on a fat tire ebike wearing a safety jacket and was standing the entire time
I guess I didn't express myself properly, because I did not in any way want to suggest that safe cycling practices would necessarily protect you from the hoards of ignorant and inattentive drivers on the roads. IMO the best advice for cycling is ride as if everyone in a car is actively trying to hurt you.
That being said, I do see a lot of cyclists in my city do stuff which puts them in risky situations more often than they need to be, which is what I was trying (and apparently failed, judging from the downvotes) to get at. No amount of safe cycling practices will make up for improper infrastructure or lack of proper driver training, that much I'm sure we agree on.But I'd hope you'll agree that one's not putting the odds in their favour if they're, for example, riding down the wrong side of the road on the sidewalk at night without lights. If you've been cycling for 25+ years, I've no doubt you already follow most if not all of the safe cycling practices I wish I could share with my fellow cyclists, the intent of my comment was not to victim-blame cyclists but rather expressing my wish to help educate noobie cyclists to reach the level of knowledge and comfort on the road that more experienced cyclists like us take for granted.
Of course you'll still face road conflicts no matter what, the majority of drivers are a menace to public safety. It's not a matter of eliminating risk, it's about minimizing points of potential conflict in order to minimize risk.
Fair enough, I don't think you're entirely wrong. There's definitely something to acknowledging that we're cycling in an imperfect environment and that there's things we can do to make it safer - its just a really awkward line to toe especially because such videos (that do already exist, and some are even put out by cycling-related government agencies) usually start with "don't forget your helmet and your hi-viz and your £500 lights" before they even get into the roadcraft side of things, as though any of those things actually do anything to stop drivers being dicks.
Unfortunately, an individual cyclist cannot enact laws, build infrastructure, or change a culture of dangerous driving by oneself.
What we can do is take precautions and cycle cautiously.
That's for individuals though, any political entity focusing on cyclists' behaviour instead of the behaviour of drivers is missing the mark so badly.
As for the existence of such "safety" videos, the ones I've seen have all been jokes because the insist heavily on following the law, especially government-funded videos. Breaking road laws written for motor vehicles is, in many situations as a cyclist, the safest course of action, but I've yet to see any safety video address this.
As for the existence of such “safety” videos, the ones I’ve seen have all been jokes because the insist heavily on following the law, especially government-funded videos. Breaking road laws written for motor vehicles is, in many situations as a cyclist, the safest course of action, but I’ve yet to see any safety video address this.
Yeah, I think we're in agreement for the most part here too. I've even seen "cycling safety" videos put out by car companies and you can imagine the sort of nonsense they come out with!
Obviously it depends entirely where you live and what laws you have, but where I am most of the rules we're supposed to follow as cyclists do make sense and are relatively safe guidelines. The issues come because drivers think the rules don't say what they do (common example: there's nothing stopping cyclists in a bunch riding however many abreast they can, and nothing stopping a single cyclist from taking the lane rather than hugging the curb, but many drivers feel that this is illegally holding up traffic/being unsafe). I wish we had things like Idaho Stop laws, I've ridden in states that allow this and it really does help a lot of situations.
If you've been doing it this long you know that you're the outlier. Bicyclists are terrifying to be near.
I guess every single person I know who also cycles in my area who says the same thing are outliers too.
The fact that I've seen so few cyclists wearing high visibility gear is astounding. That was the first thing I bought after buying my bike, was a high-vis retro-reflective vest. Probably also helps that my bike has running lights, but still.
People shouldnt need to be neon colored to not be killed on their commute.
I agree, but we don't live in that world. Until our governments start giving a shit, we gotta do what we gotta do. If we're going to be forced to share the road with two ton death machines, it only makes sense to ensure that they can at least see us.
I'm not following your line of thinking.
If we banished all cars, and people where on dedicated E-Bike/Bike roads, you assume dangerous collisions at night would just disappear?
Yes. Collisions are far less likely when the vehicles are smaller, and far less deadly when the vehicles are slower and less massive.
Collisions are far less likely when the vehicles are smaller Citation? Why would smaller mean less collisions?
far less deadly when the vehicles are slower and less massive = Correct
But both of your points have NOTHING to do with the topic "People shouldnt need to be neon colored"
They still require to be more visible to each other when travelling at E-bike speeds at night.
Why would smaller mean less collisions?
Easier to dodge. Less physical area to hit.
I'm not arguing that people shouldn't wear hi-viz, lights, ect. Of course they should. But we need to stop blaming cyclists when cars are the thing actually causing the harm. I'm trying to find a link to statistics on numbers of deadly crashes not involving a car, I recall seeing it somewhere and it was less than 1%.
Delusional
I consider lights to be a necessity. I have a bright 1800 lumen Niterider headlight that I love and (I think) a 350 lumen Cygolite taillight. I never ride on the road without at least the taillight flashing.
My state law considers them to be a necessity as well (at night). Sadly about half the bicycle riders I see riding at night have no lights. Occasionally I see them in a local news article once they get struck by a car.
Only half?
Go for ankle straps over vests. It's far more important for the reflective materials to be moving than the amount of body coverage you have.
GCN recently covered this topic with interviews of optometry and psychology professors: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33GpfTWdk8U
Makes sense, thanks!
Absolutely baffling that you're being downvoted. Anyone using the road needs plenty of ways that other road-users can see them easily. Cars and motorcycles have lights and reflectors, bicycles need them too!
You're ignoring that the cyclist is being blamed instead of any other thing. Say like the terrible infrastructure for starters.
I'm not ignoring anything. I'm saying that on top of needing improved infrastructure and road laws, more cyclists need to be aware of the fact that they're pretty much a floppy bag of skin and bones which is no match for a metal box going 20-50mph.
which is no match for a metal box going 20-50mph.
Agreed. So let's lower the speed limit to 20mph at the absolute maximum in cities, and add traffic calming measures so that cars more easily stick to that limit.
You want 25 mph for 70 miles of road in some places, not reasonable given how the US has built itself. Places that can achieve this (dt San Francisco, dt Boston,dt Oakland, dt New York) already do this.