Well, actually, no… distressingly often, I am almost rear-ended in such a situation, and have been actually hit three times! In the city (where I’ve been hit two out of the three times) it’s not nearly as bad as on the highway; the third time it was a Jetta coupe (tiny encono-box, perhaps 2000 pounds?) that ran into the Avalon I was in (4000 pound 4-door), and had the situation been reversed, I probably would not be around to post this today…

Now, *I* am watching out for you folks on bikes, but please remember, many other drivers *are not*; so please help by trying to avoid creating situations that they aren’t expecting!

bwcbwc – I agree completely, in my car I outmass the average bike by a factor of 25, and cruse about 20 to 25 mph faster than them on a highway…

First, I have to say I am pleased that I only see one victim-blaming comment. (Boing Boing is better than the NY Times! Who knew?) Sorry, Lonin, I know you said you “weren’t trying to” blame the victim, but that’s exactly what you did. I choose to believe you speak out of the modal bias mentioned by Lupin–i.e., you don’t ride a bike, therefore you have no subjective understanding of what bike-riding entails. Most of the motorists I encounter every day are in your shoes. I think it would be a fine thing for all road users–bikes, cars, peds–to consider each other a little more, use our imaginations, turn on our compassion, maybe do a little research, so that we don’t end up hating each other to death. As I see it, we’re all out here together; there is no “them”.

Michael Smith’s proposal for a bike license has crossed my mind before. I still feel that the best way to prevent cyclist casualties is *motorist* education. Protecting bikers by lecturing them about road safety reminds me of protecting college freshwomen from rape by lecturing them about not drinking or going out at night. In both cases, the lecture would be better aimed at the potential *perpetrators* of violence, rather than always at the potential victims. Which is not to say that bikers shouldn’t do their utmost to protect themselves.

I also have a few thoughts about bike lanes. Most of the bike lanes I ride in are nothing more than a pleasant fiction. The happy paint on the road does not protect me from renegade motor vehicles, and in my experience motorists drift into these lanes alarmingly often. Also, many motorists seem to conceptualize the bike lane as an official double-parking lane, causing me to have to redirect into the car lane to pass their parked vehicle. My preference is for this organization: bike lane, THEN parking lane, and then car lane, as seen on 8th and 9th Avenues in Chelsea, NYC. Bikers are still not completely safe from negligent drivers (the Ghost Bikes on the freakin’ West Side Bike Path testify to that) but a little buffer zone is of the good.

On sharrows: I was hit in one (on Boreum at Joralemon, ftr) and find them nerve-wracking. Yes yes yes to shared lanes asking everybody to pay more attention, but a. that doesn’t always happen and b. the aforementioned hostility that many motorists have for cyclists makes the shared lane feel like swimming in a shark tank. PNH, I am interested to hear why you prefer sharrows?

If having your BoingBoing account suspended is your idea of nice.

Lonin: engineering standards in Australia allow for 800mm of door opening space and 250mm lateral clearance between the door and the vehicle. Many doors open to 1100mm and road authorities rarely follow the design standards anyway.

A rule I apply is to do one of the following:

1. In a wide curbside lane (> 4.3m) where space is available leave plenty of clearance to the overtaking vehicles.

2. In a narrow curbside lane move right to reduce the available space. This forces the overtaking vehicles to use the next lane to the right, which gives you more clearance again.

Summary: Never leave barely enough room to pass. Bus drivers and postal drivers are rightly proud of their ability to judge the width of their vehicle.

My opinion: If we are going to improve things on the road we need to train and test our bike riders. Most of them are drivers too, and many of them are pretty bad drivers I reckon. The presence of bike racks on top of a 4WD Subaru gives me the horrors if I see it coming.

Just a general sense that on streets with sharrows, cars are forced to notice that I exist. This seems to me safer.

Now, mind you, there are places in NYC where the DOT uses sharrows simply because there isn’t room for a bike lane, even one of the “let’s pretend” painted-on, hard-up-against-parked-cars kind. Fifth Avenue north of Union Street in Park Slope is one of those. But given reasonable room for cars and bikes to share–say, for instance, Bay Street in Red Hook–I find that sharrows encourage drivers to be conscious, in ways that painted-on lanes do not.

That aside, skeletoncityrepeater’s answer is correct. Painted-on bike lanes that run flush up against parked cars are a bad idea for a number of reasons. The obvious reason is that unless you ride at the lane’s outermost edge, you run the risk of being “doored”–and one of the not-unlikely consequences of being doored is that you are thrown bodily into oncoming traffic and killed. But they’re also a bad idea because the existence of unsafe painted-on bike lanes creates in many drivers–Lonin evidently among them–the impression that bicycles are required to confine their travel to the bike lane, even when it’s obviously unsafe to do so, and that if they don’t they’re breaking the law.

This may be the law in some places, but if so, it’s a crazy law. It’s certainly not the law in New York City — bicycles are supposed to use bike lanes when they exist, and keep generally to the right when bike lanes don’t exist, with a specific exception in all cases for situations where common sense and safety say to do otherwise.

The general principle is that bicycles are vehicular traffic and that provided they follow the rules of vehicular traffic (stop at lights and stop signs; don’t ride on the sidewalk; obey one-ways) they’re entitled to take a lane just as if they’re a car. Obviously some cyclists don’t obey the rules; but then, many drivers are also scofflaws, and pedestrians jaywalk constantly as well. Speaking as a mostly law-abiding cyclist who rides daily in Brooklyn and Manhattan, while I’m enthusiastically in favor of the rapid transformation of our cycling environment that’s been happening over the last few years, I find that streets with “sharrows” are much safer for cars and bikes alike than streets with bike lanes painted on adjacent to the line of parked cars.

With the shoulder stock sawn off, it can be slung nicely under a light jacket.

skeletoncityrepeater’s answer is the standard one, and a very important one — the desire not to get “doored” which is as prevelant here in Boston as it probably is anywhere — but Michael Smith’s answer is also a good one that most beginner bicyclists don’t know: never be squeezed right up against the curb. If you do, cars will just go straight as if you don’t exist, figuring that they can get by, and if they either misjudge or if a pothole sends you a few extra inches out into the street, you’re going to get clipped.

Rather, always be a foot or so away from the curb. This forces drivers to actually acknowledge you and to physically turn their steering wheel to get around you, even if only a few extra inches, or preferably into the next lane. Bikes need to assert their claim to the space around them or they’re going to get squished.

Note that the above obviously depends on the specifics of the road you’re driving on, as well as the width of any potential bike lane that may or may not exist.

I’m considering starting an aggressive aggressive road safety campaign with catchy slogans like the following:

Signal your turn ahead of time,
Lethal negligence is still a crime.

or

Please don’t park in the bike lane,
Or we’ll smash out your Goddamn brain.

or

If you gun through another red,
We’re going to blow off your fuckin’ head.

The last one might need some polish. Until this project gets off the ground, my best advice to cyclists is to pedal softly and carry a big hammer.

I can wax poetic on all forms of conspiratorial theories on the value of an automobile as a rolling room-with-a-view, but sticking to more concrete ideas, I think it’s simply that legislators do not use bicycles as primary transportation.

As a pedestrian and cyclist, I conclude that laws mean absolutely nothing in this case. I consider that: (1) nearly all drivers are motivated to not want their car damaged, (2) nearly all people do not want to injure or kill someone, and (3) nearly all people are distracted at one point or another while driving. With that in mind, I try to be seen, be seen as a substantial object, be seen as a human being, and to ride like I’m invisible in areas where driving can be a passive activity (i.e. low mental stimulation leads to lackadaisical behavior).

I have for a while, however, considered starting an illegal cycling gang that will shoot people who threaten us with their cars — sort of a “you point a deadly weapon at me, I’ll point one at you” kind of philosophy. Generally it’s just to try and wake people up to the notion that cars are dangerous to people not in cars, but most people believe cars give them a right to be irresponsible with other people’s lives.

I have also noticed that most cars will not slow down and wait to pass safely when faced with oncoming traffic, blind curves, etc. They’ll just make room by squeezing me off the road unless I take control of the lane. So I block them when I have to, and then move to the right and allow them to pass as soon as it’s safe. Seriously, slowing down for a couple of seconds until you can pass safely isn’t going to kill you.

Ask the city official who’s duty it is under law to prosecute the case. That would be the DA of San Fransisco – no?

If you get no action, the coroner’s office has quite a lot of power. The coroner can hold an inquiry and shine a whole lot of light on this/similar cases.

Instead of just suing the owner of the plates, create a community event (a party), to raise money to pursue all of the above.

You’ll get press by going to the DA. And more press by going to the coroner. Use that press to advertise the fund raiser. Once all this is rolling you’ll find Lawyers are willing to do public good cases, choose one who understands that the politics are the most important part of this, not whether you win/lose the actual suit (although that would be nice).

Use multi-media to your advantage: i-phone audio/video all your meetings with public officials, pre-package news for the dying old style news outlets, use the Bloggosphere, Youtube and Twitter.

You’ve got a slam-dunk morally righteous case, good luck.

Need to talk more?
Google: Michael Holloway’s FilterBlogs —> gmail

mh

Hit and run should be treated like any other assault with a deadly weapon. Heh, Hitting someone and not running should be treated that way also. Slow down, maintain control of your vehicle, and remember where ever the fuck you are going is not more important than someone else’s health.

On a funny note… I have a friend who has been hit by a car 2-3 times… and HE HAS BEEN THE ONE TO RUN. Imagine you hit someone the get up and they take off.

I hear you about how this is not as clear-cut as my initial comment implied. A Wall St broker (do those still exist?) who lives in Tribeca certainly has a more bikeable commute than, say, the concierge in that guy’s building who lives in Flushing. But, I see this “but what about the guy who lives in ENY and drives to his job in Harlem?!” used frequently as a strawman argument to demonize transportation reform. Disclaim: I am sure this is not what you are doing here, just giving you the background on why I made my initial comment. Living near work has become a privilege of wealth, and that is a symptom of a greater problem of civic misplanning and income dispartity and housing injustice. I am in big favor of addressing those extremely pressing troubles. And I surely don’t want to punish the hypothetical ENY-to-Harlem commuter. But I don’t want to shut down all discourse on traffic reform just because some (probably City Council member (who probably drives a car)) calls upon that hypothetical commuter to support. the status quo.

I just get agitated because I often hear bicycling decribed as a purely recreational activity, done only by obnoxious white dudes wearing Lance Armstrong costumes who will zoom through your red light because their $3000 bicycle is designed so that they can never take their feet off the pedals to stop. Or by trust-funded fixie aficionados whose thighs are as skinny as their bike frames and who are too cool and rebellious for your silly traffic laws. And I do see those guys out there, and they are annoying. But I also see a ton of working joes and josies just trying to get from point A to point B. AND, I see a TON of dudes who are on their bikes in all weather at all hours balancing a pizza, or whatever. I feel like anyone who complains about bikes had better never have ordered delivery in their lives. And anyone who complains about bikes blowing red lights had better never have jaywalked in their lives. I think that basically covers the whole population of New York.

Gotcha. Thanks.

Nowadays the weight and speed differential is so great, perhaps it’s time to get bikes off of the roads and onto the sidewalks and trails. Then the cyclists can get yelled at by the pedestrians they clip, rather than yell at the SUVs that clip them.

In all seriousness, what we really need is a 3-tiered road design with a full 3/4 lane dedicated to bikes, mopeds and scooters, but until that happens, many roads are just too unsafe. Here in suburban Florida, the bicyclists ride on the sidewalk even when there are bike lanes without parked cars because so many of the car-driving loonies down here really are out to get them. Or at least drive like they are.

Of those hits, 2 cars and all of the bicycles were on the sidewalk at the time of impact.

Of the car drivers, only one acknowledged (or probably was even aware of) having hit me. That driver, who had been adjusting her iPod while making a right turn, waved to me merrily as she drove off. None of the cars stopped.

Of the cyclists, two apologized without stopping, two stopped and apologized, and one threatened to kick my ass if I didn’t get the f* out of his way.

Dunno what any of this means. My only conclusion is you can’t trust anyone to be looking out for you on the road, nor doing the right thing even if they see you. Be careful out there!

I would’ve assumed they were illegally in the country or had warrants. That’s usually the case here in Texas.

Having BEEN a pedestrian on the receiving end of a hit & run, I can sympathize.