FWIW - I've ridden about 23000 km over the past three years. In rain, snow, and sun. I regularly commute to work through some busy areas in a large city. I often ride to visit friends and family great distances away. I like to go out for long rides and get lost, finding new ways back. Sometimes this puts me on busier roads than expected. Cycling isn't incredibly dangerous. There are dangers. It's a good idea to check with more experienced cyclists especially when you're starting out to help mitigate these risks. I've seen a lot of stupid behaviour by everyone on the road (pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers). Generally speaking though things aren't that bad out there.
I have been nearly on top of a biker, at 50 MPH, before I even saw the idiot! He was stupid enough to find a head to toe outfit that was damn near exactly the color of aged blacktop (greyish black) and was in the driving lane, on a bleak cloudy day. I could easily see an elderly or distracted driver running over somebody like this, and not having a single clue as to what happened until they heard the crash, and saw the body flying.
You point out the most troubling part of this whole conversation here. In your scenario, you would be 100% at fault for the accident. You were at fault for (admittedly) driving beyond your own capabilities. The blame though, you are attempting to entirely foist upon the cyclist. If an elderly or distracted driver runs over someone, they have proven themselves unworthy of exercising the right to drive and should have their license revoked.
Is it a good idea to wear reflective clothing, a helmet, and use lights while cycling? Yes, absolutely. Blaming a cyclist who doesn't do that for an accident though is like blaming a rape victim for being out at night. The crime is entirely out of the hands of the victim. It's disturbing how normalized people are to the idea that cyclists should always be at fault for careless drivers who are operating their vehicles unsafely.
How odd, I generally have a great respect for your input. In this case you couldn't be more wrong. Nothing I said is the least bit troubling, it's a clear expression of the realities of biking in rural areas, and risks you assume by making poor choices. I am young, attentive and quick enough in my reactions that the near collision I speak of, never put this idiot in danger. That said, you have the same shitty attitude that a lot of bicyclist have. "Reality and physics are meaningless, I have my rights, and if you turn me into a road pizza it's YOUR FAULT!" Really fucked up logic that is all too prevalent in that crowd.
As a cyclist I'm vulnerable to people driving vehicles on the road. If you want to kill me, you'll certainly kill me. I personally do as much as I can to prevent this from happening. At the end of the day though, if I'm following the rules of the road and you decide to kill me . . . well, it is your fault.
So, the next car behind me is piloted by an 90 year old woman who didn't see the pale gray rider on the pale road, in the dimness of a very overcast day, until it was too late and now the biker is dead. Who gives a shit that it's technically 100% her fault? She didn't see a guy riding in her lane, while damn near perfectly camoflaged, and as a result, THEY BOTH made a tragic error, that could of been avoided if HE had a little common sense. If the same rider was riding in the same scenario, with a High-Vis Jersey, and a $10 flashing LED light in the back, he would of been visible to all, from a hundred yards back. That's the reality of it. Righteous indignation about who's fault a death or disabling injury is, is meaningless. Rural roads, particularly in on the east coast, are typically old, fast, narrow, and have very little traffic that is anything other than cars and trucks. Expecting everybody to drive as if they should anticipate a nearly invisible bicyclist, in their lane, around every blind curve, is a lovely theory, but not part of the real world.
If the 90 year old woman is incapable of operating a motor vehicle safely (as demonstrated by killing someone due to bad eyesight), I certainly care about her fault. She shouldn't be allowed to kill again. I don't expect drivers to follow the rules of the road when I ride . . . but I certainly wish that they did. At the end of the day, a car that decides to kill you will. Attempting to push blame for accidents onto cyclists who are operating legally though is wrong. It is important that we draw some attention to the commonplace negligence of many drivers.
You don't ride a 30lb bike, on high speed rural roads, with the attitude that your moral authority trumps reality.
You're right, I don't.
It is a fairly dangerous activity, and you have a responsibility to mitigate as much of that danger as possible. There is a large volume of research that's been done on motorcycle safety, and how to improve it. Much of that work points to visibility as being a key factor. I recall one statistic from the UK that just wearing a white helmet resulted in your likelihood of being struck by another vehicle being reduced dramatically. It's a free country, and you're welcome to dress however you want on the high speed rural roads in this country. That said, logic and science make it clear that being as visible as possible to other vehicles will make you far safer.
There are dangers inherent to cycling. I think it's a good idea to mitigate risks if possible. High viz/reflective/lighted stuff is a great idea for personal safety! That said, not wearing hi-viz doesn't make it OK for cars to kill you. It doesn't make it your fault if a driver is negligent.
Guitarstv, I have to say I thought a bit higher of you, until this. You continue to tilt at windmills here. You refuse to acknowledge that the situation on the ground, be it rural or urban bike riding, is what it is. risks are common, and typically well understood. Many of those risks can be mitigated by choices you make while riding. Yet, like many hard core bicyclists, you will not accept the facts.
I haven't argued that risks can't be mitigated while riding. Actually, I completely agree with that statement. That's why I said that you should wear bright clothing, use a helmet, and have lights.
The elderly shouldn't be on the road, there should be no distracted driving, nobody should ever open a car door without double checking for bikes, and everybody should be hyper alert for the poor biker who can dress, act and do whatever the fuck they want because it's their "right".
You appear to be very angry about this, and I'm not entirely sure why.
I didn't say that the elderly shouldn't be on the road. I said that if the elderly can't operate their vehicle safely they shouldn't be on the road. There shouldn't be distracted driving, but as a cyclist you're certainly going to see an awful lot of it. Everyone
should be hyper alert when operating a multi-thousand pound vehicle at speed. You can't assume that they will be unfortunately.
I certainly didn't say that cyclists should be able to do 'whatever the fuck that they like'. They should however, be free to ride their bikes on the road in accordance with the law. If they're following the law and you drive into them, you're at fault (even if they weren't wearing lime green with flashing sequins.
I'll tell you the scene that I'm hoping will never happen in my area, but I doubt my wish will come true. It's the big groups of weekend warriors out there pretending that our tourist chocked rural roads are actually their own private road race. They can be seen in all kinds of locations, like blind curves and corners as they ride 3-4 abreast often in both lanes. One of these days there will be a vehicle that ends up slicing right through the middle of one of these groups, it will end horribly, and the wailing and bullshit will sound just like you wrote the script. It will be everybody else's fault but theirs. Tragic, totally avoidable, but hey, they don't ride in reality, they ride in a magical place where everybody else needs to mitigate the risks they face, and they will always be the victim.
Nobody should cycle dangerously. It's not a good idea to ride 3-4 abreast on a road (for a variety of reasons). It's always a bad idea to ride in the oncoming traffic lane, but it would be particularly stupid to do it around a blind corner. I've advocated none of this behaviour. (As an aside though - there's nothing wrong with a large group riding in a double paceline. It's perfectly safe, and sensible to do.)
All that I've said is that if you drive into an accident with a cyclist because you weren't paying attention, you didn't leave enough time to react while rounding a corner at speed, because your eyesight is going due to age . . . you're at fault, and they're the victim. That should really be pretty uncontroversial.
Can we parse the post that I was referring to for a second?
I have been nearly on top of a biker, at 50 MPH, before I even saw the idiot!
Driver was moving at unsafe speeds because he couldn't see what was coming up in front of him.
I would say your perspective is incorrect here. Unless the driver was speeding or in some way operating their vehicle in a way that is unsafe with respect to lawful traffic conditions, it's the biker moving at unsafe speeds on the roadway. The law, generally, supports my perspective here. Just not consistently for bikes.
I don't know what your local laws are. Here, if a driver is operating his motor vehicle at speeds exceeding his ability to see and react to obstacles on the road . . . the driver is at fault for the accident because he was driving dangerously. If a car had a blown engine, was stopped ahead on the road, and paddedhat plowed into the back of it he would be at fault too.
I would be interested to see the part where it says that you're allowed to drive your car into the back of slow moving farm vehicles, construction vehicles, horse drawn carriages, etc. without fault in your jurisdiction.
There already exist laws for slow moving vehicles. They exist for pedestrians, bicycles, horses, carriages, farm equipment, construction vehicles, etc. If you are in a car and are driving unsafely, sorry . . . you don't get to blame an accident you cause on the slower moving vehicles. The person operating a vehicle in an unsafe manner is the person who causes the crash by driving their car beyond their own ability.
The biker, riding at well below the posted limit (again, assuming the driver was not speeding), is the actor operating their vehicle in an unsafe manner an the actual causal agent of the accident.
Again . . . can you post the law indicating that it is illegal/unsafe to operate a bicycle below posted speed limits? Aside from a few laws regarding restricted highways/roadways (which of course, should be followed) I've never seen one before.