172
here in the west, they lobbied/bullied enough to the governments now they act like douches all the time. its a double edeged sword. most of them have no respect for pedestrians.
In Japan the fault for accidents is always assumed to be the larger vehicle. If a truck hits a car it's on the onus of the truck driver to prove he wasn't doing anything wrong, and if a car hits a cyclist, the car driver has to prove their innocence etc.
I think to most Americans that seems appalling (what if the stupid cyclist was doing something reckless?! Etc.), but it definitely makes people in Japan drive much safer in areas where there are potential cyclists, and thus makes it safer to cycle places easily.
Where do you see that? I see if both vehicles are moving both are at fault even if one runs a stop sign.
It's the same in the Netherlands. The most vulnerable traffic participant is always protected. Bicycle gets hit by a car? Cars fault. Pedestrian gets hit by a bicycle? Cyclists fault. And so on.
I've been the car driver in a bike versus car crash and I'm glad that wasn't the law where it happened. It was 100% the cyclist's fault; he ran a red light on a fairly fast road and was obscured by a box truck until he was in my lane.
I do think car drivers should be held to a higher standard because cars are more dangerous, but automatic fault based on vehicle size takes it a bit too far.
But they’re not claiming the car driver is always at fault, only the presumption of fault. Clearly demonstrating the other person ran a red light has a good chance of changing the judgement
The comment about Japan said there's a presumption. The comment about the Netherlands suggests it's always the car driver's fault (I think this may be technically incorrect).
Blind pedestrian gets hit by sighted pedestrian? Sighted pedestrian's fault and also a total dick move.
I lived in a town with a huge seeing impaired population and it did take a little getting used to, but you adapt to being more aware of your surroundings pretty quickly. I didn’t ever actually collide with any person, but I’ve bumped into a couple of canes when the angle was such that I couldn’t tell they were coming towards me. I did feel like a huge dick though.
The cane is there to detect obstacles. They are used to it hitting things, it's part of their life.
You don't have to feel bad about it even though it is something you should try to avoid. It's hard to see that cane when it is poking out in front of the person all the way at the ground if you turn around or things like that.
If I had to guess you both apologized when it happened, and both of you should be able to walk away satisfied after a random friendly interaction like that.
Some of those citations are cyclists on sidewalks endangering pedestrians...
Others is cyclists running red lights.
So, cyclists hitting a pedestrian, I feel like we'd agree who's at fault.
But say a cyclists runs a red light and tbones a SUV, you're saying the SUV is at fault?
They're saying it's on the SUV driver to prove they didn't do illegal things that resulted in the accident, assuming normal police requests don't do it first (security camera footage of the intersection) because nobody knows for sure who ran a red light except the people involved, unless there's proof.
Not "someone said the SUV ran a red light and everyone believed them instantly without proof and the SUV was found at fault"
They said assumed, which makes me think it’s a general predisposition, but open to additional evidence. We assume a car that rear-ends another is at fault, but that doesn’t make that if car A pushes car B into car C, the operator of car B is necessarily liable for car C’s damages. It’s just the going theory before additional evidence comes into play.
It feels a lot safer to be a pedestrian in Japan. I never saw a driver take precedence for themselves.
The general traffic rule is that unless indicated otherwise, roads are primarily for pedestrians and cyclists, so you're the one borrowing their roads, not the other way around.
Cyclists also have a lot more rules and are required to have liability insurance in Japan
No, they're not.
Not sure where you heard this, at most you need to register your bike with the police so they know who to fine if you leave it overnight somewhere it's not supposed to be
The US doesn't need to do that because a left bike will be stolen before it's been there long enough to bother anyone.
I lived in Japan for a few months
“All Bicycle Riders Must Enroll in Bicycle Liability Insurance in Tokyo (and some other prefectures in Japan)
The Tokyo Metropolitan Government requires all bicycle riders (including children) to purchase Bicycle Liability Insurance in Tokyo.”
https://www.japanlivingguide.com/expatinfo/transportation/cycling-rules/
Keep riding your ebikes. Please slow down and make noise when you ride past me on the sidewalk. I swear somebody almost hits every day In out walking around. A simple "Honk honk, coming through", please.
Imagine being ticketed for walking the wrong way down a sidewalk or crossing the street. At intersections pedestrians generally have the right of way unless it's signalized (or a car is already inside the intersection).
Cyclist are pedestrians.
These kind of stories almost read as "car is king" and all other modes of travel (walking, running, cycling) are required to conform around the car. Next thing you know grandma will get a ticket for riding her mobility scooter the wrong way down a sidewalk.
The main issue is improper Infrastructure. Streets are destinations and Roads are throughways. Street are multi-use and should be designed as such.
This is a street. It's a destination where local pedestrians have the right of way.
This is a "strode" its a neither a street or a road. Car rule and use these as throughways.
This is a road. It's a proper throughway with no street parking or driveways. Reduced conflict zones such as no intersections or left turn.
Also obligatory:
Emotos, ie. "Self powered" high speed electric motorcycles should be treated similar to regular motorcycles or cars.
Ebikes ie. "Pedal assist" or "human-powered" bicycles are low speed and similar in nature to regular bicycles or in some cases "mobility devices" like grandmas mobility scooter.
not even close, people are pedestrians, ive encountered more often than not that bicycles ignore pedestratians when they are crossing the streets, or if they are behind a person, sorry but they act like they are in cars themselves.
Cyclist are pedestrians.
Unless you mean this in some very unconventional way — absolutely not. Bicycles are vehicles.
When was the last time you road a bicycle on a busy roadway ? Bikes are not vehicles.
Bikes are very much vehicles legally.
Uh… yesterday?
Bikes absolutely are vehicles.
Cars are dangerous weapons
Which is why some of those 6k citations are for riding on the sidewalk
I would agree any item that is used to transport goods or people in any way is considered a vehicle, but i would add the term "vehicle" is somewhat loose in meaning or interpretation.
There are two distinct classes of vehicles though. Self-powered and Human-powered.
Self-powered vehicles. Example, an aircraft, car, tank, truck, motorcycle, scooter.
Human-powered vehicles. Example, a bicycle, unicycle, balance bicycles, scooter, dandy horse, handcar, draisine, shoping cart, and maybe even shoes?
Now the reason I believe classifying cyclists as pedestrians, is because it would require a "shift" in how infrastructure is designed within our towns and cities.
The city "strode" is a unsafe place for a pedestrian or people in general to be (as it's currently designed). Classifying a cyclist as a pedestrian would highlight the need that the equivalent of "sidewalk infrastructure" is required for the well-being of people on a bicycle.
Now imagine yourself walking (in your shoes) on a city "strode" in the middle of a lane, it feels "wrong". So why do we force all ages of people on a bicycle to do this?
Now the reason I believe classifying cyclists as pedestrians, is because it would require a "shift" in how infrastructure is designed within our towns and cities.
Nah, classifying bicycles as pedestrians would be the worst of all worlds and result in the elimination of all considerations for bicycles just like we’ve been working on for pedestrians over the past hundred years.
I saw this same story from another source in a different post (https://archive.is/sZYDO).
There’s one specific paragraph in that article that is not covered in this one:
New York City has begun a crackdown on e-bikes and scooters riders. It follows actions by city officials from Paris to Honolulu to Hoboken, N.J., who are responding to residents angry about zippy vehicles with silent electric motors zooming down sidewalks and streets, often startling people, and occasionally hitting pedestrians.
"If a 4,000-pound SUV runs a red light, they get a ticket and you pay it online. You're done with it in a matter of minutes. But if a 60-pound bicycle runs a red light, then they can get a criminal summons, which means you have to take a day off of work, go to court, probably you should hire a lawyer. And if you are an immigrant, then that can put you at risk of deportation," Berlanga said.
I'm in California, not in New York City, but I have to say that while I have seen cars run red lights, it is exceedingly rare, whereas I see bicyclists doing it all the time. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if New York City has a similar situation. Whether-or-not the current situation is a good one, I do think that there's a lack of deterrence as things stand.
EDIT: And while that's the most egregious issue, I also see:
-
People riding their bikes on the street at night without a light, which they are required to have here. This one boggles me, because I've almost been hit on a number of occasions while bicycling with a light at night, and now use both a regular headlight and a flashing headlight and a flashing taillight to increase visibility. People who bicycle in black clothes with no lights at night are crazy, even issues of illegality aside, and I see those every night.
-
Not nearly as common, but bicyclists cycling the wrong way down roads. Automobiles don't do this.
Alright, I hear you, but I think the point is that a cyclist running a red light mostly endangers themselves, while a car running a red light endangers others. Here in Colorado, we changed the laws such that a red light is a stop sign for bicycles, and a stop sign a yield, in recognition of the differences in risk. (Edit: cars -> bicycles)
Cool except for the person who hits the cyclist and surfers emotional damage.
That's assuming that an oncoming car wouldn't swerve at all if a cyclist entered their path. Dangerous or unpredictable behavior by anyone on a road puts everyone in the area at risk.
Yes, and nobody disputes that some bicyclists put everyone at risk. The point of the article, though, is that drivers are handed a fine, while bicyclists are handed criminal charges. Pointing out that bicyclists are given harsher treatment for a less dangerous offense is, I think, fair in this case.
a red light is a stop sign for cars
I assume you mean “…for cyclists”?
I would argue a stop sign is car infrastructure.
Did we have stop signs before cars started to fill up our city streets?
I would agree but the parent is talking about how the rules for driving apply to bicycles differently from cars.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Right on. But I gotta say those strobe lights on bikes blind the sh*t out of all who see them. You can’t see anything else but that light. And I’m speaking as someone walking on the sidewalk.
"If a 4,000-pound SUV runs a red light, they get a ticket and you pay it online. You're done with it in a matter of minutes. But if a 60-pound bicycle runs a red light, then they can get a criminal summons..." A 60lb bicycle with a 120-190lb adult meat crayon riding it. That's 250lbs of meat and metal getting slammed by a 4000lb SUV that had the green.
"You stop and double park while you're doing DoorDash or Uber, and you get a ticket for double parking, and there is no consideration for a working man who's trying to do his living,"
Peak NYC... "Yeah, uh, I broke a well known and established law, but I'm working here! Gimme a break!"
"It's because the design and the infrastructure is not there to protect the people who are the most vulnerable..."
Pedestrian and traffic laws exist as a deterrent to keep people from doing stupid and dangerous things. Bike lanes and greenways exist. That's the infrastructure! You're a pedestrian breaking a law that's been implemented because it makes something unsafe for everyone. Maybe don't do the thing that makes things unsafe!?
I bike a lot in San Diego, which has a decent amount of bike lanes. Not a ride goes by without me having to leave the bike lane to go around someone parked in the bike lane. A law is only effective if it is enforced.
Parking in a designated bike lane should be treated like the equivalent of mounting the curb and parking on a sidewalk.
All ages of people use bike-lanes just like all ages of people use sidewalks.
Forcing people onto a full lane of potential deadly traffic should not be taken so lightly.
Being keyed every time they park in a bike lane might change their habbits.
wont that make things worst, since it will cause increased resentment and road rage against bikers.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
What I haven't seen mentioned yet is that we have a established registration and licensing system to streamline identification, ticketing, and consequences for vehicles, however it's not used for bicyclists. There are pros and cons and ambiguity to overcome. Is biking considered a privilege like cars? Is it really "pedestrian" with electric bikes now?
Tickets for bikes isn't something that can be tacked on to the existing DMV infrastructure easily so of course they have to be processed differently for now.
Now if bikes/riders were licensed too, that may be easier to ticket just like vehicles, but good luck trying to push that law through.
This comment seems to be suggesting that because enforcing traffic laws against people riding bikes is more difficult than it is against people driving cars, people should be punished more harshly when they violate traffic laws on bikes.
What that argument ignores is the vast difference in risk to others. The car is a couple orders of magnitude more dangerous, which is a major reason the law requires a license and registration to operate one on public roads. The idea of balancing the difficulty of enforcing traffic laws against people on bikes with harsher penalties only makes sense ignoring the difference in danger to others between bikes and cars.
Their first sentence explains their premise.
What I haven't seen mentioned yet is that we have an established registration and licensing system to streamline identification, ticketing, and consequences for vehicles that bicyclists don't use.
They’re saying the infrastructure around vehicles has established process which doesn’t exist for cyclists. They’re positing, from my reading, that this is contributing to the disparity in how infractions are handled; that if bicycles had license plates, registration etc. similar to vehicles the current system could be equally applied.
Wow, swing and a miss, bud. That is so, so not what I said at all.
In no way did I imply "people should be punished more harshly". Nor did I address anything about weight.
Jeez, stop making stuff up.
The comment appears to be a defense or justification of the current practice. Apologies for the confusion if that's not what you meant.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2025
172 points (100.0% liked)
News
31214 readers
2195 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS