NY Times article - Cycling will kill you!

On 11/19/2013 7:04 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 20:08:59 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Monday, November 18, 2013 3:52:14 PM UTC-5, Stephen Bauman wrote:
On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 08:35:42 -0800, Frank Krygowski wrote:



snip



On Saturday, November 16, 2013 10:20:48 AM UTC-5, Stephen Bauman wrote:



What's the source of your information?



Here's a link to a report evaluating Portland's bike box "experiment."



http://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/...of-Bike-Boxes-

at-

Signalized-Intersections-2010.pdf



That's a link to a 2010 draft report. First, if you read it through,

you'll see it has much to do with _perceived_ safety, and judgments by

respondents looking at photos of installations, etc. It emphasizes that

much more heavily than the observations from cameras. (Even so, it

notes that only about 5% of bicyclists use the bike boxes as intended -

that is, to get literally in front of the cars.)



My sources of information were given upthread. Here they are again:

http://www.portlandmercury.com/Blogt...12/10/16/city-

finds-bike-boxes-may-actually-increase-crashes



and



http://www.portlandmercury.com/image...16/1350403953-

bike_box_letter_merc.pdf





Thank you for the links and indulging in my laziness in not following all

your other posts.



When it came to actually decreasing crashes, it certainly seems the

design failed.





You may be a bit hasty in reaching a judgment based solely on the raw

data.



The quoted newspaper blog noted that only 4 of the 11 test sites
experienced an increase in right hook crashes, although total right hook
crash count increased. One could also state that bike boxes were
effective in 64% of the installations. It's a question of whether the
glass is half full or half empty.

Well, if 7 of 11 installations observed no change, or only a statistically insignificant decrease, then one would _not_ say that the bike boxes were effective at those intersections. IIRC, at the four worst intersections, crashes roughly quadrupled, leading to an overall near-tripling of right hooks.

However, the source document that you referenced some important
information that both the blogger and you ignored.

The first item is minor. If you look at the actual data contained in the
source document, 5 of the 11 intersections experience an increase in
right hook crashes. I note this because it is a measure of how carefully
the newspaper blogger examined the report.

The report contains two caveats that are stated on the bottom of the
first page:

"Bicycle use and volumes increased significantly since the treatments
were installed.

Police investigation and reporting practices have changed since the
treatments were installed resulting in a higher rate of reporting for
bicycle involved crashes."

The second caveat calls into question the validity of using actual police
reports for comparing before and after right hook collisions at these
intersections. Even worse, there is no obvious quantitative correction to
correct for the difference in before and after reporting standards.

The first caveat should be obvious. If more bicycles passed through the
treated intersections, then more right hook collisions would be expected.
Another caveat that was not mentioned is that if more vehicles making
right turns at the treated intersections should also result in more right
hook collisions.

The table that recorded the number of right hook collisions also noted
that ridership on the Willametter River bridges increased 50% and all
crashes reported by the police increased by 55%. That's quite a change
and should be factored in. What's important is the differences in bike
and vehicle right turn volumes at these 11 intersections.

Up to now, I'd gotten no indication that the bike traffic volumes had nearly tripled at the intersections in question - as did the right hook crashes.


Fortunately, there is before and after survey data for most of these
intersections. It's contained in Table 1 of the reference I cited. You
will be pleased to know that the final report was issued and is available
at:

http://otrec.us/project/227

Thanks. I'll download it and read it.

The survey data shows: bikes before, bikes after, vehicle right hand
turns before and vehicle right turns after. There is no ambiguity for
determining these parameters, unlike conflict detection. There is
complete data for only 9 of the 11 treated intersections. The
instrumentation did not work for one of the intersections and was
incomplete for another.

A reasonable methodology for compensating for differences in bicycle and
vehicle right turns is to prorate the actual before right hook crashes by
the ratios for the after to before for the changes both number of
bicycles and number of right turning vehicles. The result would be the
expected value for right hook crashes, if there were not intersection
treatment. This number would then be compared to the actual number of
right hook crashes for the treated intersection. This comparison would
try to eliminate the differences due to increased traffic volumes.
An example of the calculation is as follows:

the number of before and after right hook crashes for the intersection of
SW 3rd & Madison are 4 and 9 respectively. The before and after cyclist
counts were 314 and 611 respectively. The before and after counts for
vehicles turning right were 101 and 117 respectively. Therefore one would
reasonably expect the after count for the number of right hook crashes to
be:
4 x (611/314) x (117/101) = 9.02.
if there were no treatment.

The actual count was 9, meaning the bike box had negligible effect on the
number of right hook crashes at this intersection - despite a 125%
increase in the raw numbers.

If this calculation were carried out for the 9 intersections for which
there was complete data, the total expected number of right hook crashes
would be 37.98. The actual total count was 32, meaning the bike box
treatment prevented 5.98 right hook crashes. The two missing
intersections did not experience any right hook crashes, so not including
them did not change this result.

I would not bet the farm on these results. There are too few data points.
That's what the authors of the draft study stated. The blog author
qualified the supposition that the treatments increased crashes by using
the subjunctive voice. Comparing raw data from dissimilar experiments has
its perils.

I'd certainly agree on "not betting the farm." In fact, if the experiment is (as claimed) to test whether bike boxes reduce right hook crashes, there's a big confounding factor. It's become clear to me since this discussion started that with the installation of bike boxes, it also became illegal to do right turns on red at those intersections. ISTM that the proper test would have been to first impose "no turn on red" and gather data; then afterward, install a bike box and see if there is a reduction beyond that from "no turn on red." It seems both modifications are being tested simultaneously, and that may give the bike boxes more credit than they are due. (A "no turn on red," if enforced, should reduce right hooks even at the beginning of a green light phase.)

I'll read the full report. I'm sure many others here will as well. ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

Perhaps they should do what some prefectures are doing here. They have
"motorcycle Boxes". At a stop light you have a "stop" line painted
across the Road and some 12 - 15 feet behind that is another line,
wider than the stop line and with the words "Motorcycle", and usually
a little drawing of a motorcycle. Cars are to stop at the first
(Motorcycle) line and motorcycles are to stop at the second (stop)
line. That way the motorcycles get a head start before the cars turn
:-)

It works too, the cars dutifully stop before the wide line and the
motorcycles worm their way down into their box. when the light turns
green (well, actually a second before) it looks like the start of the
Le Mans race :-)



Sounds like what the bike box(es) here is(are):
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montre...-box-1.1108241

I haven't been to this intersection since they've painted the box but it
looks from pictures like what you describe except that it funnels from
the bike lane.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=bike+...2F%3B640%3B480


This area is pretty heavily congested with both cars and bikes so I'm
not surprised that they would do something here. The bike lane has been
there for a while but the box is relatively new. One thing to note is
that right turn on red is illegal on the island of Montreal.

I don't see any issue here that's exacerbated by the box. We have to
ride on the right so right hooks on green lights are a problem. I think
at a red light this would give the cyclist a chance to get in front of
that threat.

On a green light I don't see it as being any worse because of the box.
The experts say that it's somewhat better because the motorists see more
clearly that there are bikes around but I don't know about that. There
are a lot of bikes around this area. You'd have to be blind to not
notice them.

On Monday, November 18, 2013 8:08:59 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Monday, November 18, 2013 3:52:14 PM UTC-5, Stephen Bauman wrote:

On Sat, 16 Nov 2013 08:35:42 -0800, Frank Krygowski wrote:







snip







On Saturday, November 16, 2013 10:20:48 AM UTC-5, Stephen Bauman wrote:







What's the source of your information?







Here's a link to a report evaluating Portland's bike box "experiment.."







http://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/...of-Bike-Boxes-



at-



Signalized-Intersections-2010.pdf







That's a link to a 2010 draft report. First, if you read it through,



you'll see it has much to do with _perceived_ safety, and judgments by



respondents looking at photos of installations, etc. It emphasizes that



much more heavily than the observations from cameras. (Even so, it



notes that only about 5% of bicyclists use the bike boxes as intended -



that is, to get literally in front of the cars.)







My sources of information were given upthread. Here they are again:



http://www.portlandmercury.com/Blogt...12/10/16/city-



finds-bike-boxes-may-actually-increase-crashes







and







http://www.portlandmercury.com/image...16/1350403953-



bike_box_letter_merc.pdf











Thank you for the links and indulging in my laziness in not following all



your other posts.







When it came to actually decreasing crashes, it certainly seems the



design failed.











You may be a bit hasty in reaching a judgment based solely on the raw



data.







The quoted newspaper blog noted that only 4 of the 11 test sites

experienced an increase in right hook crashes, although total right hook

crash count increased. One could also state that bike boxes were

effective in 64% of the installations. It's a question of whether the

glass is half full or half empty.



Well, if 7 of 11 installations observed no change, or only a statistically insignificant decrease, then one would _not_ say that the bike boxes were effective at those intersections. IIRC, at the four worst intersections, crashes roughly quadrupled, leading to an overall near-tripling of right hooks.



However, the source document that you referenced some important

information that both the blogger and you ignored.



The first item is minor. If you look at the actual data contained in the

source document, 5 of the 11 intersections experience an increase in

right hook crashes. I note this because it is a measure of how carefully

the newspaper blogger examined the report.



The report contains two caveats that are stated on the bottom of the

first page:



"Bicycle use and volumes increased significantly since the treatments

were installed.



Police investigation and reporting practices have changed since the

treatments were installed resulting in a higher rate of reporting for

bicycle involved crashes."



The second caveat calls into question the validity of using actual police

reports for comparing before and after right hook collisions at these

intersections. Even worse, there is no obvious quantitative correction to

correct for the difference in before and after reporting standards.



The first caveat should be obvious. If more bicycles passed through the

treated intersections, then more right hook collisions would be expected.

Another caveat that was not mentioned is that if more vehicles making

right turns at the treated intersections should also result in more right

hook collisions.



The table that recorded the number of right hook collisions also noted

that ridership on the Willametter River bridges increased 50% and all

crashes reported by the police increased by 55%. That's quite a change

and should be factored in. What's important is the differences in bike

and vehicle right turn volumes at these 11 intersections.



Up to now, I'd gotten no indication that the bike traffic volumes had nearly tripled at the intersections in question - as did the right hook crashes.





Fortunately, there is before and after survey data for most of these

intersections. It's contained in Table 1 of the reference I cited. You

will be pleased to know that the final report was issued and is available

at:



http://otrec.us/project/227



Thanks. I'll download it and read it.



The survey data shows: bikes before, bikes after, vehicle right hand

turns before and vehicle right turns after. There is no ambiguity for

determining these parameters, unlike conflict detection. There is

complete data for only 9 of the 11 treated intersections. The

instrumentation did not work for one of the intersections and was

incomplete for another.



A reasonable methodology for compensating for differences in bicycle and

vehicle right turns is to prorate the actual before right hook crashes by

the ratios for the after to before for the changes both number of

bicycles and number of right turning vehicles. The result would be the

expected value for right hook crashes, if there were not intersection

treatment. This number would then be compared to the actual number of

right hook crashes for the treated intersection. This comparison would

try to eliminate the differences due to increased traffic volumes.

An example of the calculation is as follows:



the number of before and after right hook crashes for the intersection of

SW 3rd & Madison are 4 and 9 respectively. The before and after cyclist

counts were 314 and 611 respectively. The before and after counts for

vehicles turning right were 101 and 117 respectively. Therefore one would

reasonably expect the after count for the number of right hook crashes to

be:

4 x (611/314) x (117/101) = 9.02.

if there were no treatment.



The actual count was 9, meaning the bike box had negligible effect on the

number of right hook crashes at this intersection - despite a 125%

increase in the raw numbers.



If this calculation were carried out for the 9 intersections for which

there was complete data, the total expected number of right hook crashes

would be 37.98. The actual total count was 32, meaning the bike box

treatment prevented 5.98 right hook crashes. The two missing

intersections did not experience any right hook crashes, so not including

them did not change this result.



I would not bet the farm on these results. There are too few data points.

That's what the authors of the draft study stated. The blog author

qualified the supposition that the treatments increased crashes by using

the subjunctive voice. Comparing raw data from dissimilar experiments has

its perils.



I'd certainly agree on "not betting the farm." In fact, if the experiment is (as claimed) to test whether bike boxes reduce right hook crashes, there's a big confounding factor. It's become clear to me since this discussion started that with the installation of bike boxes, it also became illegal to do right turns on red at those intersections. ISTM that the proper test would have been to first impose "no turn on red" and gather data; then afterward, install a bike box and see if there is a reduction beyond that from "no turn on red." It seems both modifications are being tested simultaneously, and that may give the bike boxes more credit than they are due. (A "no turn on red," if enforced, should reduce right hooks even at the beginning of a green light phase.)



I'll read the full report. I'm sure many others here will as well. ;-)

Read the price tag -- $72K. That would fill a lot of pot holes, and in fact would pay for 12 bicycle boxes. You can pick the location. Put one in your driveway.

I like the friction testing -- during July and August. Let's try that again, say, today -- when its wet and slippery. The aggregate wears off, and the thermoplastic gets slick. It's not as bad as manholes or some other road markings, but still more slippery than asphalt. I approach all the colored asphalt (lane, box, etc.) with caution this time of year along with the death-bricks on SW 5th, train/streetcar tracks (everywhere) and manhole covers/steel plates. Throw in heaps of leaves and decomposing leaf-paste, and its more fun than a slip 'n slide. Plus, with the rain on my glasses and on-coming head lights, I can't see a f****** thing on my way home from work. Sing with me "It's the most dan-ger-ous time of the year . . ."

Off to buy handlebars.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Tuesday, November 19, 2013 3:12:59 PM UTC-5, Jay Beattie wrote:

I like the friction testing -- during July and August. Let's try that again, say, today -- when its wet and slippery. The aggregate wears off, and the thermoplastic gets slick. It's not as bad as manholes or some other road markings, but still more slippery than asphalt. I approach all the colored asphalt (lane, box, etc.) with caution this time of year along with the death-bricks on SW 5th, train/streetcar tracks (everywhere) and manhole covers/steel plates. Throw in heaps of leaves and decomposing leaf-paste, and its more fun than a slip 'n slide. Plus, with the rain on my glasses and on-coming head lights, I can't see a f****** thing on my way home from work.. Sing with me "It's the most dan-ger-ous time of the year . . ."

All the steel tracks in Portland streets, with their attendant slots, always made me wonder about their crash count. They've certainly made me pay attention, even riding there when it's dry.

Not in Portland, but on a certain bike tour, as we were slowly approaching a set of perpendicular railroad tracks on a rainy uphill, I told my daughter "Watch out, the tracks will be slippery." She gave me that snotty "Dad!!!!" that we're all familiar with - the one that means "Of _course_ I know that, I'm not a fool!" The next moment, she was down on the ground. No damage, but Dad's wisdom was a little reinforced.

It was similar to one of my only two lifetime motorcycle falls. A friend and I had taken shelter under a bridge to wait out a thunderstorm. On emerging, I had to cross a set of RR tracks while turning, going perhaps 3 mph. I was instantly on the ground, just like in judo class!

So how many track-related bike crashes does Portland see in a year? Anyone know?

- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 08:37:36 -0500, Duane
wrote:

On 11/19/2013 7:04 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 20:08:59 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

snip


Perhaps they should do what some prefectures are doing here. They have
"motorcycle Boxes". At a stop light you have a "stop" line painted
across the Road and some 12 - 15 feet behind that is another line,
wider than the stop line and with the words "Motorcycle", and usually
a little drawing of a motorcycle. Cars are to stop at the first
(Motorcycle) line and motorcycles are to stop at the second (stop)
line. That way the motorcycles get a head start before the cars turn
:-)

It works too, the cars dutifully stop before the wide line and the
motorcycles worm their way down into their box. when the light turns
green (well, actually a second before) it looks like the start of the
Le Mans race :-)



Sounds like what the bike box(es) here is(are):
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montre...-box-1.1108241

I haven't been to this intersection since they've painted the box but it
looks from pictures like what you describe except that it funnels from
the bike lane.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=bike+...2F%3B640%3B480

Similar except that we don't have "bike lanes".

I'm not sure what the legal justification for them is, except perhaps
the Provencal Governor said so, and they aren't universally used but
in Phuket, which does have them, they seem to work well.

I did ask a Cop about them and he implied that they were intended to
"get the damned motorcycles out of the way" - I'm translating rather
freely here - but he certainly didn't say "bicycle".

But we don't seem to have all the right turn - well Left Turn -
problems that I see mentioned here. Perhaps because the law deems that
the larger vehicle is at fault until proven otherwise and this
generally would mean that the larger vehicle would be responsible for
medical care, replacement of broken parts, etc. Perhaps this induces
more care in making turns.



This area is pretty heavily congested with both cars and bikes so I'm
not surprised that they would do something here. The bike lane has been
there for a while but the box is relatively new. One thing to note is
that right turn on red is illegal on the island of Montreal.

I don't see any issue here that's exacerbated by the box. We have to
ride on the right so right hooks on green lights are a problem. I think
at a red light this would give the cyclist a chance to get in front of
that threat.

On a green light I don't see it as being any worse because of the box.
The experts say that it's somewhat better because the motorists see more
clearly that there are bikes around but I don't know about that. There
are a lot of bikes around this area. You'd have to be blind to not
notice them.
--
Cheers,

John B.

John B. wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 08:37:36 -0500, Duane
wrote:

On 11/19/2013 7:04 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 20:08:59 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

snip


Perhaps they should do what some prefectures are doing here. They have
"motorcycle Boxes". At a stop light you have a "stop" line painted
across the Road and some 12 - 15 feet behind that is another line,
wider than the stop line and with the words "Motorcycle", and usually
a little drawing of a motorcycle. Cars are to stop at the first
(Motorcycle) line and motorcycles are to stop at the second (stop)
line. That way the motorcycles get a head start before the cars turn
:-)

It works too, the cars dutifully stop before the wide line and the
motorcycles worm their way down into their box. when the light turns
green (well, actually a second before) it looks like the start of the
Le Mans race :-)



Sounds like what the bike box(es) here is(are):
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montre...-box-1.1108241

I haven't been to this intersection since they've painted the box but it
looks from pictures like what you describe except that it funnels from
the bike lane.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=bike+...2F%3B640%3B480

Similar except that we don't have "bike lanes".

I'm not sure what the legal justification for them is, except perhaps
the Provencal Governor said so, and they aren't universally used but
in Phuket, which does have them, they seem to work well.

I did ask a Cop about them and he implied that they were intended to
"get the damned motorcycles out of the way" - I'm translating rather
freely here - but he certainly didn't say "bicycle".

But we don't seem to have all the right turn - well Left Turn -
problems that I see mentioned here. Perhaps because the law deems that
the larger vehicle is at fault until proven otherwise and this
generally would mean that the larger vehicle would be responsible for
medical care, replacement of broken parts, etc. Perhaps this induces
more care in making turns.


Around here it seems to be enough for the driver to say they didn't see the
cyclist they right hooked. Even if they had to pass the cyclist to hook
him.

The idea of the larger vehicle being at fault unless proven otherwise
would probably help but here it's innocent until proven guilty.




This area is pretty heavily congested with both cars and bikes so I'm
not surprised that they would do something here. The bike lane has been
there for a while but the box is relatively new. One thing to note is
that right turn on red is illegal on the island of Montreal.

I don't see any issue here that's exacerbated by the box. We have to
ride on the right so right hooks on green lights are a problem. I think
at a red light this would give the cyclist a chance to get in front of
that threat.

On a green light I don't see it as being any worse because of the box.
The experts say that it's somewhat better because the motorists see more
clearly that there are bikes around but I don't know about that. There
are a lot of bikes around this area. You'd have to be blind to not
notice them.


--
duane

On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 6:08:25 AM UTC-5, Duane wrote:

The idea of the larger vehicle being at fault unless proven otherwise
would probably help but here it's innocent until proven guilty.

I don't think the two concepts are (or at least, should be) mutually exclusive. Seems to me the motor vehicle's operator could be held automatically at fault from an insurance viewpoint, so that the insurance he's required to carry automatically covers any damage done by his car. Criminal liability could be treated differently, with a higher standard of proof.

Jay may wish to comment, of course.

- Frank Krygowski

On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 20:08:59 -0800, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip


Up to now, I'd gotten no indication that the bike traffic volumes had
nearly tripled at the intersections in question - as did the right hook
crashes.


The number of right hook crashes increased less proportionately than the
bike traffic volumes. However, the bike volume increase at the treated
intersections is a measure that the cyclists preferred the bike box
treatment. Another indicator is that the study also included two
untreated intersections as a control. Bike volumes decreased at the
untreated intersections.

snip



I'd certainly agree on "not betting the farm." In fact, if the
experiment is (as claimed) to test whether bike boxes reduce right hook
crashes, there's a big confounding factor. It's become clear to me
since this discussion started that with the installation of bike boxes,
it also became illegal to do right turns on red at those intersections.
ISTM that the proper test would have been to first impose "no turn on
red" and gather data; then afterward, install a bike box and see if
there is a reduction beyond that from "no turn on red." It seems both
modifications are being tested simultaneously, and that may give the
bike boxes more credit than they are due. (A "no turn on red," if
enforced, should reduce right hooks even at the beginning of a green
light phase.)


Bike boxes won't work right turn on red is permitted for vehicles. It's a
safety hazard. Bikes face a red signal. They proceed to the bike box and
a right on red turning vehicle gives them a right hook.

Right on red is illegal in Europe. It's also illegal in two jurisdictions
in the US: NYC and Washington DC. The need to prevent right on red did
not come up in Europe nor in my home town. If the experiment is to test
bike boxes, then banning right on red is part of the package.

Only banning right on red is a separate experiment. As a thought
experiment, I believe that only banning right on red would not reduce red
hook crashes. However, they would reduce t-bone crashes into the bike
having the green light. I have to change my cycling instincts, when I
cross the NYC line (8 miles away). I have to remember that some car may
speed into my path from the right, even though I have the green light.


Stephen Bauman

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 11:08:25 +0000 (UTC), Duane
wrote:

John B. wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 08:37:36 -0500, Duane
wrote:

On 11/19/2013 7:04 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 20:08:59 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

snip


Perhaps they should do what some prefectures are doing here. They have
"motorcycle Boxes". At a stop light you have a "stop" line painted
across the Road and some 12 - 15 feet behind that is another line,
wider than the stop line and with the words "Motorcycle", and usually
a little drawing of a motorcycle. Cars are to stop at the first
(Motorcycle) line and motorcycles are to stop at the second (stop)
line. That way the motorcycles get a head start before the cars turn
:-)

It works too, the cars dutifully stop before the wide line and the
motorcycles worm their way down into their box. when the light turns
green (well, actually a second before) it looks like the start of the
Le Mans race :-)



Sounds like what the bike box(es) here is(are):
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montre...-box-1.1108241

I haven't been to this intersection since they've painted the box but it
looks from pictures like what you describe except that it funnels from
the bike lane.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=bike+...2F%3B640%3B480

Similar except that we don't have "bike lanes".

I'm not sure what the legal justification for them is, except perhaps
the Provencal Governor said so, and they aren't universally used but
in Phuket, which does have them, they seem to work well.

I did ask a Cop about them and he implied that they were intended to
"get the damned motorcycles out of the way" - I'm translating rather
freely here - but he certainly didn't say "bicycle".

But we don't seem to have all the right turn - well Left Turn -
problems that I see mentioned here. Perhaps because the law deems that
the larger vehicle is at fault until proven otherwise and this
generally would mean that the larger vehicle would be responsible for
medical care, replacement of broken parts, etc. Perhaps this induces
more care in making turns.


Around here it seems to be enough for the driver to say they didn't see the
cyclist they right hooked. Even if they had to pass the cyclist to hook
him.

The idea of the larger vehicle being at fault unless proven otherwise
would probably help but here it's innocent until proven guilty.

Probably one of there some advantages of living in a Kingdom :-)

Here the Royal Police" will, if the accident results in a death,
immediately apprehend the driver and hold him until a substantial bond
is furnished, in the form of cash, certified check or land deeds.

Next, the driver can make a private arrangement with the relatives of
the deceased as to compensation for the death and if accepted by the
family than apparently that is the end of it but if not than it goes
to trial and the likely outcome, lacking creditable witnesses, will be
a finding of unlawful death and straight into prison.

In general, motorists (and bicyclists) believe that if they hit
someone smaller then they will be punished, in some manner. Which,
generally speaking, means that left turners (we don't do right here)
are a bit cautious.

Not to say that we don't have accidents here but they tend to be due
to speeding, reckless driving, drinking, etc.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 11:08:53 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 6:08:25 AM UTC-5, Duane wrote:

The idea of the larger vehicle being at fault unless proven otherwise
would probably help but here it's innocent until proven guilty.

I don't think the two concepts are (or at least, should be) mutually exclusive. Seems to me the motor vehicle's operator could be held automatically at fault from an insurance viewpoint, so that the insurance he's required to carry automatically covers any damage done by his car. Criminal liability could be treated differently, with a higher standard of proof.

Jay may wish to comment, of course.

- Frank Krygowski

Here (small 3rd world country) if you cause a death than your
insurance doesn't matter - we have mandatory insurance for all motor
vehicles - it becomes a matter of the police and as I've said, the big
guy is deemed to have been at fault.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 11-20-2013, 06:08, Duane wrote:
The idea of the larger vehicle being at fault unless proven otherwise
would probably help but here it's innocent until proven guilty.

And no counter-testimony from the victim.

--
Wes Groleau

It seems a pity that psychology should have
destroyed all our knowledge of human nature.
— G. K. Chesterton