staying safe

[topaz]

It's that time of the year again: the weather's warming up, everyone has a smile on their face and lots of people are out taking joy rides in the sun!

It can be lots of fun to go for a drive in the springtime, but it's also important to keep remember how to stay safe on the roads. After all, our public roads are not just for passenger cars. Many truck drivers share them too. While the rules of the road apply equally to the drivers of cars and trucks, it's a good idea to yield to truck drivers whenever possible. After all, most trucks are bigger, heavier and deadlier than your car.

So just remember to follow these tips to stay safe on the road:

• When passing a pedestrian or a slower-moving car, blow your horn courteously or shout "on your left" out of the car window to make sure they're aware of you.
• If a semi is coming up behind you, move over to let them pass.  You should pull off the road if necessary to give them a safe passing distance.
• Keep traffic flowing smoothly: if you're on a highway or high-traffic artery and are holding up the trucks behind you, be polite and take the next exit.  Follow side roads to your destination.
• Don't listen to the radio or carry on a conversation with passengers while you're driving.  You need your full attention on the road!

Above all, remember the simple laws of physics: in a collision between a car and an 18-wheeler.... the 18-wheeler always wins.

Comments

[jayfurr.livejournal.com]

Uh huh.

[keyne.livejournal.com]

A little too subtle. :}

[qwrrty.livejournal.com]

Srsly? I totally thought this was off-the-charts sledgehammer style!

[khedron.livejournal.com]

Only the "on your left" part, which I am enjoying picturing. ;-)

[vespid-interest.livejournal.com]

After about the third read-through I got it...

[qwrrty.livejournal.com]

Good point. I'll move that to the top of the list, might clue it in a little earlier.

[enf.livejournal.com]

And never drive without a helmet!

[vasilatos]

I've never liked the yelling "on your left". It completely throws me off and this is a moment where seconds count.

Am I supposed to look behind me on my left? Should I move to the left? What's going on? What is this LEFT of which you speak? Now I'm startled. My solution has developed to come to a complete stop and wait for whoever is yelling to do whatever it is they think they need to do.

Better a polite honk.

[vasilatos]

PS. Good on you for being a safety maven. :-)

[qwrrty.livejournal.com]

Bikers complain that when they call "on your left" sometimes people are startled and actually veer left, and I'm not surprised. It really is not intuitive.

I have been known to call "Hi, I'm passing on your left" to be more clear about what's going on, and it does seem to help. But these days I bike mostly in the street and don't have this issue so much.

[vasilatos]

you catch my meaning exactly

[lhn.livejournal.com]

Wouldn't a lot of this analogy work better if trucks typically traveled much faster than cars? If a car or its driver can't drive with the normal flow of traffic, then barring an emergency I'd say it really should take side streets. Driving 25 in a 45 zone may be legal off highways-- though I think you can actually get ticketed for obstructing traffic in some circumstances-- but it isn't likely to make anyone popular. (And unlike bikers, the drivers generally have a choice.)

In the case of the first suggestion, the possibility of cars being as near-silent as bikes (raised by electric cars) has been suggested as a serious problem (http://www.wired.com/autopia/2008/04/that-blissfully/), with regulatory proposals to require sound generators to address it. I suppose that could be applied to bikes too, to obviate the need to warn pedestrians. (Or just put baseball cards in the spokes.)

And as for the last bit, it's flat-out true, and often pointed out to drivers by safety types. (e.g., http://www.roadtripamerica.com/forum/content.php?56-Defensive-Driving-Rule-46-Share-the-Road-With-Trucks ) If a truck is tailgating or cutting off a car, it does win, and the wise car driver will get out of the way, pulling off the road if necessary, while cursing under his breath (or otherwise).

[chukspace.livejournal.com]

This. Usually when I'm walking, I'm either with someone, so I'm probably having a conversation with them, or I'm alone, so I'm deep in thought (I have a rich interior life :-)). So when the bicyclist says something, it usually takes me a second to realize someone is talking to me, at which point it's too late for me to actually do anything.

[cruiser.livejournal.com]

The simplest solution is to ring your bell early enough that when they turn to look, they have plenty of time to move to one side & you have plenty of time to go to the other. I like bells because they're much more friendly sounding (you can't really ring rudely).

[qwrrty.livejournal.com]

Wouldn't a lot of this analogy work better if trucks typically traveled much faster than cars?

I could rewrite it with "sports cars" instead of "trucks" -- does that make it work better?

The point of the analogy is that we don't automatically grant the right of way to the bigger, faster, heavier or louder vehicle. No driver would put up with that, and no driver would take this advice seriously. Well, maybe the truck drivers would.

And as for the last bit, it's flat-out true, and often pointed out to drivers by safety types.

I don't deny it. You have to be good at defensive driving if you want to bike in the city and stay alive. The fallacy is in failing to recognize the distinction between something that's smart and something that you have a moral or legal obligation to do. It may be smart to get out of the way of an aggressive truck driver, but that doesn't mean it's my fault if he rear-ends me.

[lhn.livejournal.com]

Moral and legal, no. Mostly- I've heard of drivers being ticketed for, e.g., driving abreast exactly at the speed limit to make a point via the resultant traffic obstruction. Social, sometimes. (When I'm out walking, I try to be aware of when someone's trying to get around me and give them the opportunity, since I hate getting stuck behind a gaggle of slowpokes covering the sidewalk myself.) Pragmatic, often.

But pedestrians, bikers, and drivers are natural antagonists who will always get on each others' nerves when they're not engaged in more serious interactions. As the first and third, I'm keenly aware of jaywalkers trying to kill themselves on my grille (or just gridlock a few dozen people by ignoring left turn lights) and of drivers who don't understand that when the pale man is glowing that means they should delay their turn till the crosswalk is clear. Since I don't bike, I don't get the complementary experience of dealing with the other two classes, so naturally I only have one side of that experience.

(And yes, I get the asymmetry of danger, I know the laws, and give bikes a wide berth. That said, I can't say I'm happier to see one than a traffic jam when driving, or that I'm pleased to be clipped by or ordered about by one while walking. If there's a way to make varying speeds coexist happily, I don't know it.)

[harimad.livejournal.com]

Bells carry really well, too.

[sconstant.livejournal.com]

I just don't quite get this, perhaps because I don't really know the advice people give bikers that you're het up about. But I'm the driver that takes this advice seriously, I think.

When I'm driving and being slow - trying to find an address, ambling to a destination instead of pushing it because arrival = end of naptime, whatever - and I realize I am slowing people down, I do think it's my obligation to let them pass me. When I'm on a multilane highway and the driver in back of me wants to go faster than I am going, I attempt to cooperate with their attempts to pass me (unless the person in front of me is going at my speed and thus it would make no difference). When I'm on a single lane road with a broken line on my side, and someone comes around me, I do whatever I can to make it safe for them to do so. So yes, I grant the right of way to faster vehicles. Isn't this the whole point of multilane highways and broken lines, actually?

I guess this kind of satire usually makes me want to pick nits and sit on the other side, and, as I said, I'm probably just not understanding the context.

[qwrrty.livejournal.com]

Bells are awesome, and the sound does carry very well.

[dbang.livejournal.com]

What she said.

[qwrrty.livejournal.com]

When I'm driving and being slow - trying to find an address, ambling to a destination instead of pushing it because arrival = end of naptime, whatever - and I realize I am slowing people down, I do think it's my obligation to let them pass me.

But I don't think you do have an obligation to do that. I don't even think you think that, either. It feels awkward when traffic is backing up behind you, and it's a relief when you can pull over to let people pass, but you do not have an obligation to yield them the right of way.

The relevant piece of advice that I'm parodying here is "ride as far to the right as possible." (http://massbike.org/srsr/myths-vs-reality/cyclists-myths/) It sounds innocent enough, but taken literally, it drives people to ride unsafely -- in the gutter, next to a curb, or in the door zone. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door_zone)

Really, when I'm riding my bike, I'm pretty strongly motivated to let people pass me, too. I don't actually relish feeling like the object of drivers' aggression. The problem is that when you're on a bike, you're under a lot of pressure to pull over for traffic. A LOT. So a lot of people ride in the door zone just in order not to be in front of traffic, even though it's about a zillion times more dangerous.

[dr-memory.livejournal.com]

Above all, remember the simple laws of physics: in a collision between a car and an 18-wheeler.... the 18-wheeler always wins.

Except that that's not anywhere close to true, at least not in the sense that you're constructing the analogy. Cars built to modern safety standards will "lose" the encounter with a semi in the sense that they will sustain more damage and probably be totalled, but in anything but the worst-case scenarios there's a very good chance that the car's occupants will escape with less than life-threatening injuries, and often no injuries at all. (Indeed, the damage done to the car will often be of the sort that the car is designed to take in order to preserve the integrity of the dumb meatbags within.)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the injury/death rates for cyclists in car/bicycle accidents are much worse, per-accident, than semi/car accidents. I'd be delighted to be proven wrong, but also very, very, very surprised.

[sconstant.livejournal.com]

I guess I didn't get the door-zone analogy to "don't block faster traffic". The closest I see is the "use side roads, not the highway" - but side roads are generally safe, if inconvenient in situations when you're preferring speed over other considerations. Maybe more apposite would be: "If trucks are in the road, drive your car in the shoulder! It may start and end suddenly, and there may be large potholes, stopped motorists, and other hazards, but at least you won't be bothering the trucks."

I'll note, on the obligation versus avoiding-awkwardness question, that my vehicle code says:

Vehicle proceeding at less than normal speed.--Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into an alley, private road or driveway. This subsection does not apply to a driver who must necessarily drive in a lane other than the right-hand lane to continue on his intended route.

and also

§ 3364. Minimum speed regulation.

(a) Impeding movement of traffic prohibited.--Except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law, no person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.

(b) Slow moving vehicle to drive off roadway.--Except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law, whenever any person drives a vehicle upon a roadway having width for not more than one lane of traffic in each direction at less than the maximum posted speed and at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, the driver shall, at the first opportunity when and where it is reasonable and safe to do so and after giving appropriate signal, drive completely off the roadway and onto the berm or shoulder of the highway. The driver may return to the roadway after giving appropriate signal only when the movement can be made in safety and so as not to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.

[lhn.livejournal.com]

Do you have any numbers on this? Safety equipment doesn't trump mass differentials, which are pretty substantial in both cases. (It looks like a loaded semi weighs around 20 times as much as a car, which is at least in the same ballpark as for the m part of mv and ½mv² as for humans vs cars. Humans have less padding, but car-truck collisions likely average higher speed given that a bigger fraction occur on the highway.) Even among cars of more comparable masses, small cars have substantially higher death rates in accidents than large ones (http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4404.pdf) in both multi- and single-car accidents.

But while I can find numbers (http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/trucks.html) on car-truck fatalities (which, unsurprisingly, show that car-truck crashes are disproportionately fatal to car occupants relative to their numbers-- 4% of vehicles are large trucks, but they're involved in about a quarter of fatal multivehicle accidents, and 98% of the fatalities are to the people in the cars, not the truck), I can't find a comparison with car-bike crashes.

(Are there estimates of deaths per passenger-mile for bikes out there, broken down by type of accident? That might provide a starting point, at least.)

[innerdoggie.livejournal.com]

Hey, that's what I do, too! I don't think quickly enough to do all the rotations and points-of-view in my head to figure out whether it's my left or somebody else's left, or whether it was left I was supposed to move to, or even which one is left ...

[innerdoggie.livejournal.com]

I like that idea!

[cruiser.livejournal.com]

I was going to respond to the third item with a similar comment - of course, I'm not a lawyer with fancy lawyer search tools, so I was going to say "In New York, when I was taking driver ed, they told us that if you are driving slowly enough to impede the flow of traffic, you are legally required to pull over and let other vehicles pass." I recall seeing signs to that effect on a mountain road somewhere (maybe near Mt. Ranier?) which also had periodic wide shoulders & signs to tell you about the upcoming wide shoulders.

[sconstant.livejournal.com]

fancy lawyer search tools

Google!

[ukelele.livejournal.com]

The key point here from a law-aware cyclist standpoint is "as close [to the right] as practicable". In other words, you're not obligated to ride over potholes, broken glass, etc., or in the door zone, just because those happen to be at the right edge of the road. (I am not myself a lawyer, but cycle-law blogger Bob Mionske is; I'm cribbing off of him here.) In my not-a-lawyer opinion, I think the other quotes also make it pretty clear that your obligation to yield space comes second to your right to be safe.

Personally I also feel a lot of obligation (in the social, not legal, sense) to allow others to get past me, and I probably ride too far to the right because of this. For me a lot of the social pressure comes from my knowledge that most motorists will not be assessing whether conditions are safe for me as accurately as I will, so they will expect me to be far right even when it is not safe for me to do so, and I'm concerned about triggering road rage.

[ukelele.livejournal.com]

I am going to guess the statistics you are looking for do not exist; I have not exhaustively studied the topic, but as a longtime (if on-and-off) commuter cyclist who cares about law and safety I have tried to google up what statistics I can, and car/bike accident stats are very patchily collected (accidents tend to be reported only in case of fatality or serious injury, so it's not actually possible to determine those rates). (There's also, of course, philosophical questions about how you count up the danger -- are you looking at likelihood of serious injury given that a crash has occurred? likelihood of serious injury, or of accident, per trip? per mile traveled? per cyclist/year? Since cars and bikes are used differently it's hard to compare their accident rates. There's also huge differences by cyclist riding style & experience level and, duh, by helmet use, so an overall rate is not telling much of the story.)

[ukelele.livejournal.com]

See my comment below. Probably not good statistics.

[sconstant.livejournal.com]

You misunderstand me - I cited law because I said I, as a motorist, have an obligation to yield to faster traffic, and Q. said that I only have a feeling and not an obligation. So I cited law showing what my obligations are as a motorist.

[qwrrty.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I concede that the law permits a police officer to cite you for obstructing traffic if you're driving too slowly. But the law is written in pretty nebulous terms, leading me to think that the intent is to apply it only in really egregious cases.

[(Anonymous)]

Nebulous, yes. Applied only in egregious cases, yes. True, except in Singapore, of most of the motor vehicle code. And most law.

A master asked his student, "How many feet do you have?"
"Two," replied the student.
"And how many did you have when you were entered this world?"
"Two," replied the student.
Said the master, "Such is the way of the motor vehicle code."
The student biked home, and the next day he enrolled in medical school.

[sconstant.livejournal.com]

Sorry, that was me.

[enf.livejournal.com]

It looks like Massachusetts law (http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/89-2.htm) doesn't have a specific requirement to let faster vehicles pass: "if the way is of sufficient width for the two vehicles to pass, the driver of the leading one shall not unnecessarily obstruct the other," but if there is not room to pass safely, "the overtaking vehicle shall use all or part of an adjacent lane if it is safe to do so or wait for a safe opportunity to overtake."

California (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21656.htm) on the other hand does specify conditions when a slow-moving vehicle must pull off to allow others to pass: "On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow-moving vehicle, including a passenger vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in line, shall turn off the roadway at the nearest place designated as a turnout by signs erected by the authority having jurisdiction over the highway, or wherever sufficient area for a safe turnout exists."