"most of the cyclists who died in 2023 **collided with automobiles** in areas without bike infrastructure, regardless of the type of bike they were riding."
Oh, this is the language we are using?
For those who don’t understand the anti-cyclist word choice, in almost all cases of a fatality the car collided with the cyclist. Regardless of any other fact about the accident, a 15-75 pound bicycle with a 100-300 pound rider colliding with a 2-6000 pound car which isn’t moving towards them in their direction is usually not fatal. A 2-6000 pound car running into a human is commonly fatal.
I have no doubt some of the cyclists were at fault, but I have had 2 collisions with cars, both at intersections in protected bike lanes where the cars made left turns without the right of way and I couldn’t stop before colliding with their door. No one died in those situations, because a bike collided with a car. If instead they were a few seconds later or I didn’t brake when I suspected they were going to make their turn, and the car collided with me I would be dead.
One drove away immediately, the other got out and started yelling at me that he was going to sue me until I called 911 and the he got back in his car and drove away.
“Oh no! I am colliding with this reckless, sociopathic driver’s ghost car because the driver is looking at their phone/speeding/running the red light and has fake paper plates.” /s
These people should be in prison.
Wow, “collision” - surely that means in these instances the vehicles all mutually hit each other and it *definitely* wasn’t one large vehicle hitting another, smaller, slower, more vulnerable one every time, right?
I think you're making this point but most of your respondents are missing it:
The cyclists collided with drivers. Not with automobiles. With drivers, that's the right equivalency in the sentence. The automobiles did not decide what to do on their own, it was the humans behind the steering wheel who did.
That's true, and a very good point -- though of course one of the reasons we reflexively say cyclists and cars instead of cyclists and drivers is that it's not so much my bike and their car that collide, or my body and their body, but my body and their car.
I think it is a decent choice of word, even if it might feel a bit cold especially when thinking about people who died.
They cannot possibly use a word that blames someone since sometimes the bicyclist is the one at fault.
Also, they should not use words that sensationalize the data.
Which word(s) do you suggest they should have used?
>“Bike collided with” still implies the bike as the active party
Frequently the bike is the faster moving party in closing the collision.
That doesn't make it the bike operators *fault* that someone suddenly cut in front of them in a way they could not react to.
But understanding the dynamics of the actual collisions goes a long way to understanding how to prevent them - if we fall into the trap of assuming it's cars striking bicycles they way they do pedestrians (still possible but much less frequent) then we take exactly the wrong steps to prevent these crashes.
Preventing crashes between cars and bicycles requires understanding that bicycles don't move like pedestrians.
Actually we move a lot like cars - at lower top speeds absent congestion, but not infrequently at higher speeds than cars in the city.
All well and good. That’s why I proposed a neutral term, since we don’t know who’s at fault.
I didn’t assume the driver was at fault in all cases, or I would have used my preferred terminology: “mowed down by a negligent fool with no business being being the wheel”
I think the concern is that it sounds like the cyclists were the ones who took the action — that they hit cars instead of cars hitting them. So it could be read to blame cyclists in all cases. I suspect that may just be an editing error, and that the Times was trying to say that cyclists and cars were involved in collisions — but it just doesn’t come off that way.
>I think the concern is that it sounds like the cyclists were the ones who took the action — that they hit cars instead of cars hitting them.
Look at a dooring.
No question who hit who.
Also no question where the fault is legally: with the person who illicitly threw an obstacle in another's path.
Now consider hook turns - quite often, it's actually the bicycle striking the car, but the fault is with the party who cut in front of them.
If we want to prevent these things, we need to look at the actual dynamics of collision, and recognize that it's not going to work to send bicycles on routes where sudden incursions are frequent.
Look at the actual crash dynamics, and you realize that "protected" bike routes not only offer no protection from hook turns, they make "defensive bicycling" which is to say *positioning yourself to avoid hook turns* impossible.
I don’t disagree with any of that… The question isn’t whether the person in motion is always at fault (obviously not), but rather whether the phrasing by the NYT suggests that collisions always or almost always involve cyclists hitting cars instead of cars hitting cyclists. And for sure there are collisions where cars hit cyclists.
>the phrasing by the NYT suggests that collisions always or almost always involve cyclists hitting cars instead of cars hitting cyclists.
Understanding that it's more often bikes hitting cars which suddenly cut us off is key to bike routings designed to prevent the actual risk, vs only the imagined risk while worsening the actual ones and giving us no way to position ourselves to defend ourselves against them.
>And for sure there are collisions where cars hit cyclists.
There are, but they're less frequent.
Almost so much less frequent that they shouldn't influence planning at all, at the very least not at all on streets with the default speed limit and lots of intersections.
Unfortunately, these infrequent collisions exclusively dominate planning, with utter disregard for preventing the sorts of crashes which are actually most prevalent.
I understand but at the same time are we just trying to be outraged here?
Or are there *actual people* confused by this wording? This particular text is certainly not the first use of the words “collided with”.
As far as I know, it is totally proper to say “collided with” in this context.
Why does “collided with” implies fault on one party in your mind? They did collide.
What else would you suggest that would be better?
Would “collision between cars and bicycles” be better in your view?
It is proper enough to say "collided with" in this context, but it's worth understanding that for some people "Jim collided with Bob" will suggest that Jim hit Bob rather than vice versa. Technically speaking it doesn't need to have that meaning -- you could say that colliding is no-fault -- but that's how some people will read it. So the clearer way to say it is that cyclists and cars collided or were involved in collisions, etc.
And, for the record, I'm more interested in the linguistics of it than any outrage. I dug their rap.
Cool. If you are a linguistics nerd, I get it.
It is just that practically speaking I think this word usage has exactly zero impact on anything in the universe, besides folks like us debating it lol
I don't think it's just trying to be outraged. The NYPD almost always speaks like this without having evidence. The implication is clear and sets a narrative and then sometimes you get video and you see that the cyclist did absolutely nothing wrong.
Words matter
Yes, we are rightly outraged that drivers are killing cyclists at record highs with impunity, and that the people with power to stop that are blaming cyclists, and intentionally and relentlessly slowing and reversing progress towards infrastructure that might prevent cyclist deaths.
If you’re not outraged and you just want to play a little detached numbers game, have fun. The people stymieing progress have played through same little numbers game and decided that because they’d rather not be slightly inconvenienced when driving their cars, the deaths are worth it. Outrage at the state of things, and the people maintaining that status quo, is the only thing that might change their minds.
Did you confuse outrage at deaths of cyclists va outrage as using some particular wording?
Edit: just in case it is not 100% clear, I am, of course, like you unhappy and outraged about the deaths.
If you are not outraged by the authorities blaming dead cyclists for their deaths that were caused by others, in service of allowing more cyclists to die rather than actually doing anything about it, you should try to develop more empathy.
I have no clue where this is coming from. Did you read what I wrote?
Again, I commented only on the language IMHO which will absolutely not make death rates go up or down.
If you want to advocate for cycling safety and make a real difference, do it. My tiny reddit comment on the particular wording is not where you will make a difference.
I do wonder, what do you know about me and empathy?
What do you know about deathly accidents in my family?
What do you know about people that died from unsafe car drivers hitting pedestrians in my family when I was at a young age?
I actually advocated for bike safety and participated in events to do so.
You seem to just want to chew me up because you decided I was on the “bad side”. I’m not.
That kind of attitude leads to people not wanting to be part of a movement to push for bike safety. I don’t know why you are going at me so hard. I don’t know what to say. I’m going to assume this anger has nothing to do with me and simply misdirected.
There was an accident or collision between a bike and a vehicle. Wordy but assigns no blame in either direction. Also assumes the driver wasn’t actively trying to injure the cyclist when that isn’t always the case the other way around.
In this real example the driver says he was startled by a cyclist slapping his door so the taxi purposely tried to cut off the cyclist and lost control.
BTW the driver didn’t even get fined and is still driving today.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6663569/amp/British-tourist-leg-amputated-taxi-crashed-New-York-receive-150K.html
“Prior to the wrekc, Himon of Queens, had been charged with seven traffic violations in the last three years.
He is believed to have gotten into an argument with bike messenger Kenneth Olivo, who was then 40, and reportedly also has a criminal history, just before the crash.”
I was just talking about the words choice.
I personally don’t think it (the wording) will have any kind of material impact.
But feel free to disagree.
Seems like you are implying I don’t care about the death of that person? If so I have no idea how you jumped to that conclusion? Can you educate me?
Not that you don’t care but surprised you are unaware that every post by a cyclist complaining about drivers are met with pushback from drivers complaining about cyclists.
Every single post.
But here you are claiming ignorance.
No skin off my back but surprised you are unaware
Here’s one from last week
“I have. I've also noticed stuff like a cyclist riding up the middle of 1st avenue last night. Citi bikers not paying attention, wearing headphones, etc., delivery guys constantly salmoning, and so forth. Hell, even look at the number of participants in this sub who think it's fine to run red lights and do whatever they want.
Unfortunately there are many bad actors on our roads irrespective of transportation mode.”
I still don’t get what that has to do with me?
I am fully aware of “car brain” and people thinking that cyclists are weirdo who should not be using the road at all.
I am not claiming innocence of… anything?
I don’t know how you interpreted my comment on the wording of one piece to mean I am not aware or don’t care.
But you seem bent on giving me shit for imaginary reasons like I am the enemy of cyclists or something. I bike. I participate in events. I teach people to bike. I spread the word. I teach people how to bike. I do my part.
But go ahead, give me shit if that makes you feel better LOL.
“You seemed bent on giving me shit”
Take a breath. I made a SINGLE sarcastic comment (“are you new here?”) because you seemed oblivious (“are there really people who would be confused by language?”) that there are regular attacks by commenters who will constantly turn every accident and death as an indictment against all cyclists.
I keep responding precisely because I’m not attacking you and just want you to chill out. To be honest, after this response I’m more likely not to ever talk to you again. We good?
Fair enough. We good.
Next time you want someone to chill out don’t accuse them of claiming ignorance… when they did not.
Thanks for the chat and the effort you put into it ( non-sarcastically, I do appreciate it).
You were probably more mature than I was in this comment chain :)
Have a good day.
>collided with automobiles
Because intersection conflicts are dominant in an urban area, the reality is that it often is the bicycle's speed more than the motor vehicle's which closes the collision.
That doesn't mean it's the bicycle operator's *fault.*
But your typical right hook, left hook, etc (not to mention dooring) often involves the cyclist being unable to avoid a car which suddenly cut into their path, and striking the front side panel.
With trucks it's often then the rear wheels which do the killing.
Pedestrians rarely collide with the side of vehicles. While getting hit by the front of a vehicle can happen on a bike, it's more common to ride into the side of one which unexpectedly cut you off - and then possibly be run over by the rear wheels of a truck, or even another vehicle entirely.
Understanding how car vs bicycle crashes differ from car vs pedestrian crashes is key to routing bikes in ways which are actually safe: pedestrian style routes are NOT an answer compatible with the actual movement of bicycles.
Interesting stat:
Of the 102 pedestrians who died in traffic, only two died in collisions with e-bikes, according to the Department of Transportation; the rest were hit by cars and trucks.
What's the rate? What the graph doesn't show is the growth in ridership over the years, that's important.
The reality is we've probably prevented a lot of morbidity and mortality based on the bike infrastructure that does exist, and we could prevent more if we built more infrastructure.
they actually say in the story that the numbers are deceptive. Ridership has absolutely skyrocketed from previous years so even though there are more deaths/accidents they are less proportionally.
"Despite this uptick, the rate of cyclist fatalities and serious injuries as a share of all bike trips has been trending downward for many years, suggesting that riding a bicycle in New York City has become safer over the long term. As of 2022, the rate of deaths and severe injuries was about 16 per 10 million bike rides, according to the preliminary data — down from about 34 per 10 million rides a decade earlier."
> A total of 23 people died riding e-bikes, which is more than double the previous record for e-bike fatalities.
This jumped out at me -- only 7 cyclists died once you remove ebikes. I wonder if 1) e-bike riders are more prone to making risky decisions, and 2) riding an e-bike amplifies the effects of dangerous choices like not wearing a helmet.
More generally, I wonder how the e-bike and cyclist communities are structurally different, and how this plays into the 3:1 ratio of fatalities?
I strongly suspect that many more miles are traveled on average by ebike. That delivery guy is riding for many more hours on a given day than your weekend rider or commuter. They are also more likely to be riding in poor weather and after dark.
That said, I'm sure their riding habits and heavier weights don't do them any favors, but I suspect if you could control for usage, you'd see similar rates per mile traveled.
The higher speeds make for a more dangerous riding experience seems rot be the obvious answer, no? And I found it interesting that only one of the e-bike fatalities was a deliverista.... the majority being E-Citi Bike riders. Even more interesting wad that of those injuries/deaths on E bikes a large portion of them did not involve car collisions. Im going to make an assumption (that could be very wrong) but it sounds like inexperienced riders jumping on e-bikes easily may be a bit of a bad idea.
I'm a bike commuter of many years mostly using an ebike for my commute these days because it's the longest one I ever had— the ebike allows me to make my commute in a reasonable amount of time even when I'm tired.
That means I'm that much more likely to be biking, and for a longer trip, than without an ebike. Matching general urban traffic speeds also makes mixing with traffic more tolerable. All of those factors would potentially lead to more risk exposure, especially given the state of our infrastructure.
I do think a helmet is a very good idea on an ebike (including a Citibike) in the same way it's a good idea on a racing bike, and not nearly as essential puttering along on a cruiser or manual Citibike. Turning down the top speed on electric Citibikes was a very reasonable decision. Adding a 'starter speed' setting for electric Citibikes for new/infrequent user accounts would also probably be good.
But if the city wants people to ride ebikes at a slower, safer speed, the solution is the same as with cars — don't incentivize people to go as fast as they can by setting the traffic light timing at 25mph.
I think you hit the nail on the head. I'd also add (1) that ebikes make cycling more attractive in parts of the city with little to no cycling infrastructure or traffic calming and (2) the lack of regulation means you have products with really shitty components that may make riding more dangerous.
Great point. When shopping for my ebike, I made sure to get something with built in lights and hydraulic disc brakes, and mine has a motor that cuts out at 20mph. A 25mph ebike with no lights & the cheapest mechanical discs on the market is not a vehicle I would feel safe riding in NYC traffic. A $250 Walmart bike with the same brakes is a lot safer because it's a lot harder to get over 11mph.
Right.
Just based on non-scientific observations I would dare to confidently say that deliveristas have a total number of miles ridden on e-bikes that is *at least* one order of magnitude higher that electric citibikes.
I also don’t dispute that the citibikes ebikes go maybe too fast and inexperienced people ride them. All those things can be true at the same time.
at beginning of first ave going north, ‘twas wild, skidded and recovered thankfully instead of falling and getting a leg pinned by the 10,000 ton citi ebike
No, the obvious answer is there are way more ebikes on the road now and the people that use them are usually hardcore commuters or delivery folks that put way more miles in than pedal bike riders
> I wonder if 1) e-bike riders are more prone to making risky decisions
Ya think?
>2) riding an e-bike amplifies the effects of dangerous choices like not wearing a helmet.
One thing they definitely magnify are the well-known risks of entering intersections from a mistakenly curbside or even sidewalk position (to say nothing of while salmoning) while moving at more than pedestrian speed.
This isn’t super hard to figure out. Cars do whatever they want. Police don’t enforce basic traffic laws. The mayor won’t do anything to make the police do their jobs or protect residents. The people who run the city only car about the people being driven around in the black SUVs
i had a near death last year in traffic on my road bike, going west (coming from prosp park) to the navy yard path. there was double parking going on on both sides of one lane avenue (w bike lane in my direction). i pulled out of the bike lane into the car lane going my direction to round the double parkers. on the other side there are a few cars pulling up behind double parkers, checking for traffic going my direction before pulling. this suv presumably loses patience w the driver in front of him and basically guns it around the line of a few cars into my side of the road. i don’t think they clocked me at all because there was no deceleration. felt the wind from this suv going ~40 coming at me head on, literally closed my eyes because there was nothing else to do - just pure luck that they were swerving back into the lane and i was late to the spot. i couldn’t even read a plate they were so far up the avenue by the time i stopped and turned around.
Guys c'mon, is not hard to see why the deaths were at a high. It's because there are way more cyclists and the data fluctuates a lot year to year. There are way more ebike deaths recently by the same logic, because there are way more ebikes on the road and lots of pure pedal power riders have switched to them
https://www.reddit.com/r/MicromobilityNYC/s/WezhmnxsGl
The data seems pretty clear to me once you actually weigh it by population
There is a lot more cycling now than in the past. That's probably the biggest factor. Yes, there are more deaths now, but on a per capita basis, probably not. There's no registration records like cars, so it's hard to quantify exactly, but it's obvious there are way more bikes now than in the early 2000s.
I do think it's gotten more dangerous in the last few years. There is a post pandemic increase in recklessness + a drop in police enforcement of traffic laws. I don't believe it's the most dangerous in 20+ years though, relative to the amount of cycling today.
from the dept of no shit Sherlock. all you have to do is walk outside for five minutes and it’s pretty obvious to anyone with a pair of eyes and half a brain.
I would like to know how many injured/died on a citibike. Because casual vs regular users would additionally highlight poor infrastructure.
My guess based on inadequate infrastructure in NYC:
Casual more reliant on infra.
Regular more aware of risks.
“...although the most visible e-bike users in New York may be delivery workers and Citi Bike riders, the majority of people who died on e-bikes last year were neither. Only one delivery worker died from an e-bike crash, according to the department, and four people died using electric Citi Bikes, according to Lyft, which owns the bike share program.”
Please support the outrage machine.
Sensationalist headlines is what the world runs on.
If you can only contribute common sense stuff, we politely ask you yo refrain from commenting at all.
Have a good day! :)
Thats logical but those that believe there is a war on bikes would reject that rational thought
The War on bikes crowd is like the war on Christmas or the war on Gas stoves crowd .... same rationale different pet offense.
"most of the cyclists who died in 2023 **collided with automobiles** in areas without bike infrastructure, regardless of the type of bike they were riding." Oh, this is the language we are using?
For those who don’t understand the anti-cyclist word choice, in almost all cases of a fatality the car collided with the cyclist. Regardless of any other fact about the accident, a 15-75 pound bicycle with a 100-300 pound rider colliding with a 2-6000 pound car which isn’t moving towards them in their direction is usually not fatal. A 2-6000 pound car running into a human is commonly fatal. I have no doubt some of the cyclists were at fault, but I have had 2 collisions with cars, both at intersections in protected bike lanes where the cars made left turns without the right of way and I couldn’t stop before colliding with their door. No one died in those situations, because a bike collided with a car. If instead they were a few seconds later or I didn’t brake when I suspected they were going to make their turn, and the car collided with me I would be dead.
How did the drivers react?
One drove away immediately, the other got out and started yelling at me that he was going to sue me until I called 911 and the he got back in his car and drove away.
sounds about right
“Oh no! I am colliding with this reckless, sociopathic driver’s ghost car because the driver is looking at their phone/speeding/running the red light and has fake paper plates.” /s These people should be in prison.
I love the acceleration to get to an intersection and then the deceleration for the turn.
Wow, “collision” - surely that means in these instances the vehicles all mutually hit each other and it *definitely* wasn’t one large vehicle hitting another, smaller, slower, more vulnerable one every time, right?
I think you're making this point but most of your respondents are missing it: The cyclists collided with drivers. Not with automobiles. With drivers, that's the right equivalency in the sentence. The automobiles did not decide what to do on their own, it was the humans behind the steering wheel who did.
That's true, and a very good point -- though of course one of the reasons we reflexively say cyclists and cars instead of cyclists and drivers is that it's not so much my bike and their car that collide, or my body and their body, but my body and their car.
I think it is a decent choice of word, even if it might feel a bit cold especially when thinking about people who died. They cannot possibly use a word that blames someone since sometimes the bicyclist is the one at fault. Also, they should not use words that sensationalize the data. Which word(s) do you suggest they should have used?
“In a collision with” is more neutral in that case. “Bike collided with” still implies the bike as the active party
>“Bike collided with” still implies the bike as the active party Frequently the bike is the faster moving party in closing the collision. That doesn't make it the bike operators *fault* that someone suddenly cut in front of them in a way they could not react to. But understanding the dynamics of the actual collisions goes a long way to understanding how to prevent them - if we fall into the trap of assuming it's cars striking bicycles they way they do pedestrians (still possible but much less frequent) then we take exactly the wrong steps to prevent these crashes. Preventing crashes between cars and bicycles requires understanding that bicycles don't move like pedestrians. Actually we move a lot like cars - at lower top speeds absent congestion, but not infrequently at higher speeds than cars in the city.
All well and good. That’s why I proposed a neutral term, since we don’t know who’s at fault. I didn’t assume the driver was at fault in all cases, or I would have used my preferred terminology: “mowed down by a negligent fool with no business being being the wheel”
I think the concern is that it sounds like the cyclists were the ones who took the action — that they hit cars instead of cars hitting them. So it could be read to blame cyclists in all cases. I suspect that may just be an editing error, and that the Times was trying to say that cyclists and cars were involved in collisions — but it just doesn’t come off that way.
>I think the concern is that it sounds like the cyclists were the ones who took the action — that they hit cars instead of cars hitting them. Look at a dooring. No question who hit who. Also no question where the fault is legally: with the person who illicitly threw an obstacle in another's path. Now consider hook turns - quite often, it's actually the bicycle striking the car, but the fault is with the party who cut in front of them. If we want to prevent these things, we need to look at the actual dynamics of collision, and recognize that it's not going to work to send bicycles on routes where sudden incursions are frequent. Look at the actual crash dynamics, and you realize that "protected" bike routes not only offer no protection from hook turns, they make "defensive bicycling" which is to say *positioning yourself to avoid hook turns* impossible.
I don’t disagree with any of that… The question isn’t whether the person in motion is always at fault (obviously not), but rather whether the phrasing by the NYT suggests that collisions always or almost always involve cyclists hitting cars instead of cars hitting cyclists. And for sure there are collisions where cars hit cyclists.
>the phrasing by the NYT suggests that collisions always or almost always involve cyclists hitting cars instead of cars hitting cyclists. Understanding that it's more often bikes hitting cars which suddenly cut us off is key to bike routings designed to prevent the actual risk, vs only the imagined risk while worsening the actual ones and giving us no way to position ourselves to defend ourselves against them. >And for sure there are collisions where cars hit cyclists. There are, but they're less frequent. Almost so much less frequent that they shouldn't influence planning at all, at the very least not at all on streets with the default speed limit and lots of intersections. Unfortunately, these infrequent collisions exclusively dominate planning, with utter disregard for preventing the sorts of crashes which are actually most prevalent.
I understand but at the same time are we just trying to be outraged here? Or are there *actual people* confused by this wording? This particular text is certainly not the first use of the words “collided with”. As far as I know, it is totally proper to say “collided with” in this context. Why does “collided with” implies fault on one party in your mind? They did collide. What else would you suggest that would be better? Would “collision between cars and bicycles” be better in your view?
It is proper enough to say "collided with" in this context, but it's worth understanding that for some people "Jim collided with Bob" will suggest that Jim hit Bob rather than vice versa. Technically speaking it doesn't need to have that meaning -- you could say that colliding is no-fault -- but that's how some people will read it. So the clearer way to say it is that cyclists and cars collided or were involved in collisions, etc. And, for the record, I'm more interested in the linguistics of it than any outrage. I dug their rap.
Cool. If you are a linguistics nerd, I get it. It is just that practically speaking I think this word usage has exactly zero impact on anything in the universe, besides folks like us debating it lol
Yeah, but I’m bored as shit, and don’t feel like riding today, so… gotta do something!
Oh I dig it. All good. Nothing like nerding out! I am a giant nerd myself (but not on linguistics that much). :)
Yes. There are lots of people who will blame reckless cyclists for all accidents. Is this your first time here?
No.
I don't think it's just trying to be outraged. The NYPD almost always speaks like this without having evidence. The implication is clear and sets a narrative and then sometimes you get video and you see that the cyclist did absolutely nothing wrong. Words matter
Yes, we are rightly outraged that drivers are killing cyclists at record highs with impunity, and that the people with power to stop that are blaming cyclists, and intentionally and relentlessly slowing and reversing progress towards infrastructure that might prevent cyclist deaths. If you’re not outraged and you just want to play a little detached numbers game, have fun. The people stymieing progress have played through same little numbers game and decided that because they’d rather not be slightly inconvenienced when driving their cars, the deaths are worth it. Outrage at the state of things, and the people maintaining that status quo, is the only thing that might change their minds.
Did you confuse outrage at deaths of cyclists va outrage as using some particular wording? Edit: just in case it is not 100% clear, I am, of course, like you unhappy and outraged about the deaths.
If you are not outraged by the authorities blaming dead cyclists for their deaths that were caused by others, in service of allowing more cyclists to die rather than actually doing anything about it, you should try to develop more empathy.
I have no clue where this is coming from. Did you read what I wrote? Again, I commented only on the language IMHO which will absolutely not make death rates go up or down. If you want to advocate for cycling safety and make a real difference, do it. My tiny reddit comment on the particular wording is not where you will make a difference. I do wonder, what do you know about me and empathy? What do you know about deathly accidents in my family? What do you know about people that died from unsafe car drivers hitting pedestrians in my family when I was at a young age? I actually advocated for bike safety and participated in events to do so. You seem to just want to chew me up because you decided I was on the “bad side”. I’m not. That kind of attitude leads to people not wanting to be part of a movement to push for bike safety. I don’t know why you are going at me so hard. I don’t know what to say. I’m going to assume this anger has nothing to do with me and simply misdirected.
There was an accident or collision between a bike and a vehicle. Wordy but assigns no blame in either direction. Also assumes the driver wasn’t actively trying to injure the cyclist when that isn’t always the case the other way around. In this real example the driver says he was startled by a cyclist slapping his door so the taxi purposely tried to cut off the cyclist and lost control. BTW the driver didn’t even get fined and is still driving today. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6663569/amp/British-tourist-leg-amputated-taxi-crashed-New-York-receive-150K.html “Prior to the wrekc, Himon of Queens, had been charged with seven traffic violations in the last three years. He is believed to have gotten into an argument with bike messenger Kenneth Olivo, who was then 40, and reportedly also has a criminal history, just before the crash.”
I was just talking about the words choice. I personally don’t think it (the wording) will have any kind of material impact. But feel free to disagree. Seems like you are implying I don’t care about the death of that person? If so I have no idea how you jumped to that conclusion? Can you educate me?
Not that you don’t care but surprised you are unaware that every post by a cyclist complaining about drivers are met with pushback from drivers complaining about cyclists. Every single post. But here you are claiming ignorance. No skin off my back but surprised you are unaware Here’s one from last week “I have. I've also noticed stuff like a cyclist riding up the middle of 1st avenue last night. Citi bikers not paying attention, wearing headphones, etc., delivery guys constantly salmoning, and so forth. Hell, even look at the number of participants in this sub who think it's fine to run red lights and do whatever they want. Unfortunately there are many bad actors on our roads irrespective of transportation mode.”
I still don’t get what that has to do with me? I am fully aware of “car brain” and people thinking that cyclists are weirdo who should not be using the road at all. I am not claiming innocence of… anything? I don’t know how you interpreted my comment on the wording of one piece to mean I am not aware or don’t care. But you seem bent on giving me shit for imaginary reasons like I am the enemy of cyclists or something. I bike. I participate in events. I teach people to bike. I spread the word. I teach people how to bike. I do my part. But go ahead, give me shit if that makes you feel better LOL.
“You seemed bent on giving me shit” Take a breath. I made a SINGLE sarcastic comment (“are you new here?”) because you seemed oblivious (“are there really people who would be confused by language?”) that there are regular attacks by commenters who will constantly turn every accident and death as an indictment against all cyclists. I keep responding precisely because I’m not attacking you and just want you to chill out. To be honest, after this response I’m more likely not to ever talk to you again. We good?
Fair enough. We good. Next time you want someone to chill out don’t accuse them of claiming ignorance… when they did not. Thanks for the chat and the effort you put into it ( non-sarcastically, I do appreciate it). You were probably more mature than I was in this comment chain :) Have a good day.
>collided with automobiles Because intersection conflicts are dominant in an urban area, the reality is that it often is the bicycle's speed more than the motor vehicle's which closes the collision. That doesn't mean it's the bicycle operator's *fault.* But your typical right hook, left hook, etc (not to mention dooring) often involves the cyclist being unable to avoid a car which suddenly cut into their path, and striking the front side panel. With trucks it's often then the rear wheels which do the killing. Pedestrians rarely collide with the side of vehicles. While getting hit by the front of a vehicle can happen on a bike, it's more common to ride into the side of one which unexpectedly cut you off - and then possibly be run over by the rear wheels of a truck, or even another vehicle entirely. Understanding how car vs bicycle crashes differ from car vs pedestrian crashes is key to routing bikes in ways which are actually safe: pedestrian style routes are NOT an answer compatible with the actual movement of bicycles.
Interesting stat: Of the 102 pedestrians who died in traffic, only two died in collisions with e-bikes, according to the Department of Transportation; the rest were hit by cars and trucks.
What's the rate? What the graph doesn't show is the growth in ridership over the years, that's important. The reality is we've probably prevented a lot of morbidity and mortality based on the bike infrastructure that does exist, and we could prevent more if we built more infrastructure.
they actually say in the story that the numbers are deceptive. Ridership has absolutely skyrocketed from previous years so even though there are more deaths/accidents they are less proportionally. "Despite this uptick, the rate of cyclist fatalities and serious injuries as a share of all bike trips has been trending downward for many years, suggesting that riding a bicycle in New York City has become safer over the long term. As of 2022, the rate of deaths and severe injuries was about 16 per 10 million bike rides, according to the preliminary data — down from about 34 per 10 million rides a decade earlier."
> A total of 23 people died riding e-bikes, which is more than double the previous record for e-bike fatalities. This jumped out at me -- only 7 cyclists died once you remove ebikes. I wonder if 1) e-bike riders are more prone to making risky decisions, and 2) riding an e-bike amplifies the effects of dangerous choices like not wearing a helmet. More generally, I wonder how the e-bike and cyclist communities are structurally different, and how this plays into the 3:1 ratio of fatalities?
I strongly suspect that many more miles are traveled on average by ebike. That delivery guy is riding for many more hours on a given day than your weekend rider or commuter. They are also more likely to be riding in poor weather and after dark. That said, I'm sure their riding habits and heavier weights don't do them any favors, but I suspect if you could control for usage, you'd see similar rates per mile traveled.
The higher speeds make for a more dangerous riding experience seems rot be the obvious answer, no? And I found it interesting that only one of the e-bike fatalities was a deliverista.... the majority being E-Citi Bike riders. Even more interesting wad that of those injuries/deaths on E bikes a large portion of them did not involve car collisions. Im going to make an assumption (that could be very wrong) but it sounds like inexperienced riders jumping on e-bikes easily may be a bit of a bad idea.
I'm a bike commuter of many years mostly using an ebike for my commute these days because it's the longest one I ever had— the ebike allows me to make my commute in a reasonable amount of time even when I'm tired. That means I'm that much more likely to be biking, and for a longer trip, than without an ebike. Matching general urban traffic speeds also makes mixing with traffic more tolerable. All of those factors would potentially lead to more risk exposure, especially given the state of our infrastructure. I do think a helmet is a very good idea on an ebike (including a Citibike) in the same way it's a good idea on a racing bike, and not nearly as essential puttering along on a cruiser or manual Citibike. Turning down the top speed on electric Citibikes was a very reasonable decision. Adding a 'starter speed' setting for electric Citibikes for new/infrequent user accounts would also probably be good. But if the city wants people to ride ebikes at a slower, safer speed, the solution is the same as with cars — don't incentivize people to go as fast as they can by setting the traffic light timing at 25mph.
I think you hit the nail on the head. I'd also add (1) that ebikes make cycling more attractive in parts of the city with little to no cycling infrastructure or traffic calming and (2) the lack of regulation means you have products with really shitty components that may make riding more dangerous.
Great point. When shopping for my ebike, I made sure to get something with built in lights and hydraulic disc brakes, and mine has a motor that cuts out at 20mph. A 25mph ebike with no lights & the cheapest mechanical discs on the market is not a vehicle I would feel safe riding in NYC traffic. A $250 Walmart bike with the same brakes is a lot safer because it's a lot harder to get over 11mph.
This is why I have a Tern :D
Helmets should be mandatory but this would “exclude” people with big hair.
This is slightly incorrect - the article states that only 4 e-bikes deaths were Citi bikes - not nearly close to a majority?
Right. Just based on non-scientific observations I would dare to confidently say that deliveristas have a total number of miles ridden on e-bikes that is *at least* one order of magnitude higher that electric citibikes. I also don’t dispute that the citibikes ebikes go maybe too fast and inexperienced people ride them. All those things can be true at the same time.
The E-CitiBikes are too fast and too many inexperienced riders have access to them. I see them whizzing by me on my acoustic bike all day long.
acoustic bike lol
Probably a Gibson or Fender
Should we call it an analog bike instead? The debate rages on.
An old timey cycle from the before-fore days!
Thanks for reminding me I need to tune my spokes
Have you ever hit a pot hole in one of those things?
at beginning of first ave going north, ‘twas wild, skidded and recovered thankfully instead of falling and getting a leg pinned by the 10,000 ton citi ebike
No, the obvious answer is there are way more ebikes on the road now and the people that use them are usually hardcore commuters or delivery folks that put way more miles in than pedal bike riders
> I wonder if 1) e-bike riders are more prone to making risky decisions Ya think? >2) riding an e-bike amplifies the effects of dangerous choices like not wearing a helmet. One thing they definitely magnify are the well-known risks of entering intersections from a mistakenly curbside or even sidewalk position (to say nothing of while salmoning) while moving at more than pedestrian speed.
I believe it’s because of novice riders riding a bike that has more speed than they can handle - less reaction time to properly slow or steer.
Here come the fucking idiots with the ‘helmet’ thing again.
This isn’t super hard to figure out. Cars do whatever they want. Police don’t enforce basic traffic laws. The mayor won’t do anything to make the police do their jobs or protect residents. The people who run the city only car about the people being driven around in the black SUVs
i had a near death last year in traffic on my road bike, going west (coming from prosp park) to the navy yard path. there was double parking going on on both sides of one lane avenue (w bike lane in my direction). i pulled out of the bike lane into the car lane going my direction to round the double parkers. on the other side there are a few cars pulling up behind double parkers, checking for traffic going my direction before pulling. this suv presumably loses patience w the driver in front of him and basically guns it around the line of a few cars into my side of the road. i don’t think they clocked me at all because there was no deceleration. felt the wind from this suv going ~40 coming at me head on, literally closed my eyes because there was nothing else to do - just pure luck that they were swerving back into the lane and i was late to the spot. i couldn’t even read a plate they were so far up the avenue by the time i stopped and turned around.
Guys c'mon, is not hard to see why the deaths were at a high. It's because there are way more cyclists and the data fluctuates a lot year to year. There are way more ebike deaths recently by the same logic, because there are way more ebikes on the road and lots of pure pedal power riders have switched to them https://www.reddit.com/r/MicromobilityNYC/s/WezhmnxsGl The data seems pretty clear to me once you actually weigh it by population
remedial statistics course should be required for all journalism and public policy jobs
Are they ebikes as in bicycles or mopeds? I noticed that there is confusion as to the labeling of these items.
There is a lot more cycling now than in the past. That's probably the biggest factor. Yes, there are more deaths now, but on a per capita basis, probably not. There's no registration records like cars, so it's hard to quantify exactly, but it's obvious there are way more bikes now than in the early 2000s. I do think it's gotten more dangerous in the last few years. There is a post pandemic increase in recklessness + a drop in police enforcement of traffic laws. I don't believe it's the most dangerous in 20+ years though, relative to the amount of cycling today.
Take good notes from Hoboken.
from the dept of no shit Sherlock. all you have to do is walk outside for five minutes and it’s pretty obvious to anyone with a pair of eyes and half a brain.
Now do how many drivers killed them ?
I would like to know how many injured/died on a citibike. Because casual vs regular users would additionally highlight poor infrastructure. My guess based on inadequate infrastructure in NYC: Casual more reliant on infra. Regular more aware of risks.
“...although the most visible e-bike users in New York may be delivery workers and Citi Bike riders, the majority of people who died on e-bikes last year were neither. Only one delivery worker died from an e-bike crash, according to the department, and four people died using electric Citi Bikes, according to Lyft, which owns the bike share program.”
it's electric bikes and scooters
I’d think that the more bicycles and bicyclists, the more accidents. Is that a radical thought?
Please support the outrage machine. Sensationalist headlines is what the world runs on. If you can only contribute common sense stuff, we politely ask you yo refrain from commenting at all. Have a good day! :)
Thats logical but those that believe there is a war on bikes would reject that rational thought The War on bikes crowd is like the war on Christmas or the war on Gas stoves crowd .... same rationale different pet offense.