I’m a little confused at the assertion here. What is happening that shouldn’t be happening, and what should be changed?
Should they presume malice, and discount any reference to circumstance? What if the circumstances were actually causal (which one would hope so, otherwise there are far more murderous sociopaths than anyone would have guessed) how should we parse the difference, and how will we identify potential hazards?
Presumably, from the cyclist’s perspective, the story will almost always go like this: “I was riding my bicycle in the correct fashion, in the appropriate lane, equipped with proper safety equipment, and then BAM! They came out of nowhere,” because if they had an opportunity to see the oncoming vehicle, judge whether it’s being operated safely, see where the driver’s attention is focused, and evaluate whether the driver’s awareness has or has not been compromised by the prevailing conditions—one would hope they could have avoided the crash in that space of time.
I've been in a few close calls, and in every one the driver was not paying full attention to the road and (nearly) swerved into someone riding a bicycle.
But reporters use such sympathetic language describing the negligent driver.
Even without cameras I am pretty sure (from my past reading on ADAS systems) that you can infer driver attention from steering wheel angle position.
If you analyze patterns in wheel angle and rate of change of angle over time, I would suspect that drvers who are texting/'looking down a screen' are going to have very distinct series of 'abrupt' correction patterns.
Where that telemetry is available in cars post 2010's then it should absolutely be used in forensics.
Let me generalize on your behalf: Cyclists are maniacs. They want to be given the equal respect of cars in traffic but absolutely don't follow the same rules.
Interestingly pedestrians accidents go down when bike paths were installed on streets in NYC. Bike paths are closer and have less protection for pedestrians than car lanes so it is interesting that bicycles make it so much safer to be a pedestrian.
Because of how infrastructure is built you experience bicycles a lot closer and therefore they might feel more dangerous than cars. When you stop to think of it it is not strange, but when it comes to bicycles there is always someone who forget.
And some pedestrians are maniacs, but most of the time only are a danger to themselves. OTOH I have crashed into a lamppost from a pedestrian suddenly stepping into a bike lane from behind a utilities box.
I think we should assume that stupidity is evenly distributed and mode of transport doesn't affect it much, just the results.
Momentum is probably more of a correlation than mode of transport. Real world experience: hit by a bike versus hit by a moped, each time on a “vehicle free” footpath. One was not like the other.
Should they presume malice, and discount any reference to circumstance? What if the circumstances were actually causal (which one would hope so, otherwise there are far more murderous sociopaths than anyone would have guessed) how should we parse the difference, and how will we identify potential hazards?
Presumably, from the cyclist’s perspective, the story will almost always go like this: “I was riding my bicycle in the correct fashion, in the appropriate lane, equipped with proper safety equipment, and then BAM! They came out of nowhere,” because if they had an opportunity to see the oncoming vehicle, judge whether it’s being operated safely, see where the driver’s attention is focused, and evaluate whether the driver’s awareness has or has not been compromised by the prevailing conditions—one would hope they could have avoided the crash in that space of time.