[jetrink]

Another anecdote about Florida: I bike almost every day during good weather in Chicago and though I know it isn't the safest activity, I've never had a serious incident. I traveled to Florida last Fall and was struck by a car on my very first bike ride there. I was on a dedicated bike path that was separated from the road by a grass strip and was hit by a car turning into a driveway. It was 11am on a sunny day, but the person didn't see me. (The person was not elderly, so I believe he was probably distracted by his phone.)

[randcraw]

I'm guessing the driver faced almost no penalty for running you down. That's the main reason this problem persists, IMHO, no serious consequences for the cretins.

Go to jail or lose your license for a year plus impound your car -- only that kind of response will save pedestrian lives.

[WorldMaker]

In the US it is interesting to compare the AAA to the NRA, in terms of the amount of lobbying they've done over the decades to avoid serious repercussions in driving accidents and as much as possible shift blames to pedestrians, including the long interesting weird history of creating the "crime" of jaywalking.

https://www.salon.com/2015/08/20/the_secret_history_of_jaywa...

[hnick]

Normal people would feel bad for doing this though and try to avoid hurting people, wouldn't they? Or am I the strange one here...?

[kevin_thibedeau]

You were on a glorified sidewalk. This is why separated facilities with grade crossings are dangerous because you exist outside the cone of attention of cagers who aren't expecting a 20MPH+ vehicle on the sidewalk.

[cr1895]

>separated facilities with grade crossings are dangerous

On the whole they are much safer.

https://library.swov.nl/action/front/fulltext?id=340421

[ovi256]

>grade crossings

Grade crossings are everywhere in the Netherlands, but bikes have the right of way, and drivers and pedestrians don't, and that's also how the justice system judges things.

In most US states afaik, the legal incentives are definitely not there to care about bikers.

[ams6110]

Cars turning right across another lane of traffic (the bike lane) is the problem. It's just a very accident-prone way to arrange the lanes.

The reality is in America drivers are not accustomed to bikes passing them on the right when they are turning right. It certainly wasn't part of anything I learned in driver's training (though that was quite a while ago). I honestly could not tell you who has the right of way in that situation. Might vary by state.

So if you're cycling in America and you don't want to get hit, pay close attention to the cars on your left at crossings. Assume they don't see you. In fact as a general rule, assume the cars don't see you.

That's the main reason I rarely cycle in traffic. Too risky, and right-of-way or not, if a car hits a bike, the bike loses.

[bloomca]

> The reality is in America drivers are not accustomed to bikes passing them on the right when they are turning right. It certainly wasn't part of anything I learned in driver's training

In modern Oregon's DMV driver's book they specify this case and tell you that they have the right of way, they also include this question in the test. Not sure how it helps on the roads to cyclers, but at least they teach about it.

[brewdad]

Cyclists in a bike lane in Oregon always have right of way, meaning right-turning cars must yield to approaching bikes before turning, with one GIANT caveat. Judicial rulings have come down stating that the bike lane does not continue into an intersection since there is no paint delineating the bike lane. The one part of the road where a cyclist is most vulnerable to getting hit is also the one stretch where a cyclist has no legal protection. It's madness.

[WorldMaker]

The easy solution seems to be to just paint the stripes through the intersections. There's no good reason not to.

Compare it to NYC's efforts here where they've intentionally been adding a lot of stripes into intersections for traffic calming reasons alone to force drivers to pay more attention to their overall surroundings, especially on dangerous left turns.

https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/pedestrians/left-turn-tra...

[nybble41]

> Cars turning right across another lane of traffic (the bike lane) is the problem.

It may vary by state, but at least here in Iowa cars are supposed to merge into the bike lane (as far as possible) before turning right, not turn across it. This is the same as any other situation where you have two lanes of traffic going the same direction—you start your right turn from the rightmost lane. Bikes are expected to pass turning cars on the left in the regular traffic lane, not on the right.