While there’s a valid point to be made about expecting cyclists to behave, one also needs to consider that the vast majority of infrastructure in the US is for cars. Lights often don’t respond for cyclists, for example. If you were driving your car and you needed to get out of your car and walk over a nearby light standard and then get back in your car whenever you wanted to use a lighted intersection, how long would you go on before concluding that this was a waste of your time and start crossing when there is a large enough gap in traffic instead?

Another thing to consider is that bicyclists behaving badly are almost always only a risk to themselves, while drivers behaving badly are a risk to others. You can’t compare the two.

Cyclists can absolutely cause car accidents and get people killed. A cyclist on the road (in the US) is a vehicle and is expected to act like one, which means following all traffic control devices and signs.

Sure. But I’m a busy guy and I’m trying to stick to a proportional amount of rage for each mode, based on how much damage they inflict on others. How many of the 30k roadway deaths per year (in the US) do you think we can attribute to scofflaw bicyclists putting others at risk?

Why do people on the internet say that 2 things can't be compared immediately after comparing them?

Because people on the internet are pointing out two things that are commonly compared, and then adding further details to argue why they should not be compared.

I have no problem with that if it's done safely. But, I've had people try to blow through an intersection when I'm turning at a protected left. That's just asking to be hit.

As a driver, cyclist, and pedestrian, I'm reasonably confident that virtually 100% of collisions involving a car and a pedestrian or cyclist involves real mistakes by the driver. I use the 6 year old rule. If a 6 year old ran (or cycled) recklessly into the street would you hit them? If so, you're not driving safely.

...

Well obviously if your standard of who is at fault is "the driver is always at fault", obviously 100% of collisions are going to be the fault of the driver.

Well, yeah. They are supposed to be in control of their vehicle. If they can’t stop in time, then they are driving too fast.

So if I'm going 80 on the highway and someone jumps over the median and into my lane, it's my fault if I hit them?

This will partly depend on the type of highway you have in mind. And even so, it most probably depends on local laws, so the following is applicable in most European countries, AFAIK.

With that caveat, on access-controlled highways (motorways), you’re not allowed to walk, so any pedestrian would be in the wrong for being there. That said, even there a driver would be at fault for colliding with a human (policeman, fireman, people after a car accident, and other people who might have a very good reason to be there) regardless of what that human was doing. It’s not that different from crashing into a stopped car or any other kind of obstacle. Similarly, a driver is at fault for hitting an animal.

In non-access controlled highways, the driver would be at fault if their car collided with anything, be it another car, a human, or an animal. How legal it is for a pedestrian to cross in this case depends on local laws.

So in any case, yes, the driver is responsible, although that responsibility could be shared in some cases. If the accident results from deliberate action on the part of the pedestrian, there probably would not be any consequences for the driver in any lawsuit (unless the driver was also reckless or drunk), but for insurance purposes it does not matter.

I didn't know six year olds could run over 20mph.

If I see a 6 year old on a roadway, on bicycle or on foot, I would stop, or at least slow to a crawl. I will then wait until they get back to sidewalk before driving normally.

This is not the case with bicycles - they drive with the traffic, as a part of traffic. So I don't think this rule is very applicable to real world.

Slowing to "a crawl" with six year old in front of you would likely kill them. I don't think your judgement is one people should trust and I certainly hope this hasn't happened yet in actuality.

Who said anything about “in front”? You slow down to a crawl if they are close to you. Like riding in the bike lane parallel to you. Or even catching to you up from behind. Or standing on the opposite lane of road.

That’s what I am trying to say: with kids, even if they are nowhere in your path, you want to slow down anyway, because who knows.

This rule does applies less to adult bicyclists. For example, if there is a separate, dedicated bike lane and there is an adult bicyclist there, I will pass him. Not so with kids.

See the difference?

Citation needed.

A statement of the form "I am XXX" requires no citation. I doubt there are many who have done a more comprehensive study than AdamN of what it is like to be them.

For whatever it's worth, I would agree. I am confident that most cyclist/car accidents will be the car driver's fault. Would you even be surprised, if this turns out to be genuinely the case? I wouldn't! Do you even drive a car? I do! Car drivers are shits - or at least behave exactly like them - one for the philosphers, perhaps - and I cannot fathom how anybody that drives a car could think otherwise. Have you not noticed how these people behave? (Sure, lie to us all you like - but don't lie to yourself!) Car drivers would run your kids down, and you know it, if it would save them 5 seconds - then in court they'd cry about how things are so difficult for them now they're facing prison. Because they know they'd probably get away with it.

Out of the tiny number of times an accident is the cyclist's fault, the vast majority could be avoided if the driver was paying an appropriate amount of attention - and the 6-year-old rule of thumb is a good one, I think, when it comes to gauging how much attention is appropriate - given they're driving a 1500+ kg 200+ bhp murder machine, a major design goal of which is ensuring its occupants come out unscathed from any collision.

I am confident the remainder could be dealt with on a case by case basis.

Sigh. You may not realize this, but when someone says "I am reasonably certain that X," they are not, in fact, generally asserting their certainty. They are, in fact, asserting X to be true.

So, to your "I'm confident that..." I also say: citation needed.

> You may not realize this, but when someone says "I am reasonably certain that X," they are not, in fact, generally asserting their certainty. They are, in fact, asserting X to be true.

No, they are claiming that they have a belief (implicitly, often, a justified belief) that X has a high probability of being true, unlike stating merely “X” which denotatively is a claim that X is true without qualification.

If it is a justified belief, then asking them to justify it is not a problem then, is it?

Accident statistics in Berlin show that in accidents involving motor vehicles and cyclists, the motor vehicle is at fault about 2/3rds of the time. The ratio is a lot worse if you restrict it to trucks. It's also worse if you restrict it to accidents causing serious injury (a lot of accidents caused by cyclists happen while filtering through a line of stopped cars and touching a mirror).

And where are these statistics? And why is Berlin typical in this aspect? And why are cyclists doing such an obviously dangerous (to them) maneuver?

They are a google search away. I mentioned Berlin because I live there and looked at them before. I guess cyclists do these maneuvers because they're legal and standing at the back of a queue of cars is not a safe place to be for a cyclist. I'd rather touch a mirror and fall than be rear-ended by an inattentive driver.

Another example is one-way traffic signs. They are positioned for drivers which means that they are low enough to easily be missed by cyclists whose sitting positions are higher up.

> "go! no, you go! no you go!"

Seattle streets in a nutshell. As a frequent pedestrian I've lost count of the number of times a car has stopped in the middle of an intersection and frantically tried to wave me across a street. Some people are just bonkers. If you're already inside an intersection, don't yield to a pedestrian who's standing still on the sidewalk! Are people trying to get t-boned? Worse, in those situations I feel morally compelled to run across the street just so the driver will remove themselves from the dangerous situation they put themselves in for my sake. Absolutely infuriating.

Pedestrians behave unpredictably. And they're often pretty isolated from their surroundings these days. I don't really disagree with you but the driver has probably also seen a pedestrian obliviously walk into an intersection like that.

If the pedestrian seems oblivious that's one thing, but if the pedestrian is staring you in the eyes and is broadcasting 'what the fuck are you doing?!?' body language and gestures, I don't see much excuse.

Turn and face away from the street to forcibly yield right of way.

Drivers blowing through crosswalks (especially unmarked crosswalks) are far more common, to the point that it's unsafe to make a mandatory stop on a two lane per side road, because that risks killing the pedestrian when a driver in the second (left) lane illegally zooms past the stopped car and hits the nearly invisible pedestrian.

I'll have to try turning my back, I bet that will work.

You don't need to turn, you can just stand there, on the sidewalk, facing the street, motionless. They'll figure it out within 60 seconds.