I stopped cycling in London because I value my life. The city is not built for the amount of cyclists who are already on the roads trying to swerve between the traffic. I have seen people slamming into buses way too many times.
A can of fluorescent paint is not going to help much. Most of these accidents happen during the day anyway.
>I stopped cycling in London because I value my life
The number of deaths per year varies between 10 and 20 with about 500,000 to 1M journeys per day. More than half of those killed were on the inside of a left-turning HGV. I'm not trying to blame the victim, but I'm saying that if you don't do that than you're pretty safe.
I know its not 100% rational, but I try to minimise the amount of times I put my life in the hands of strangers. I also don't drive, and hope to never have to.
I don't know how cyclists behave in London, but what they're doing on roads in my city is absolutely horrifying - not stoping on red lights, going full speed through crosswalks, not signaling turning, driving on road when there's a bike lane alongside and so on. They don't need to pass any driving license, so most cyclist don't even know the basic driving regulations and they've this attitude "I'm the most important user on road".
I'll address each of these as a bike commuter. The underlying things to remember are that a) while cyclists are expected to obey the same traffic laws as operators of other vehicles, sometimes there are safety reasons to violate them, and b) the light weight and low speed of bicycles means that while cyclists are vulnerable to harm from motorists, motorists are not vulnerable to harm from cyclists.
Red lights: cyclists should stop for all red lights, but should not necessarily be expected to wait for the light to turn green before proceeding[0]. This is partly because of sensor-activated lights that may never register the presence of a bicycle, and partly because it can be safer by separating the cyclist from traffic waiting at the red. You should also pay attention to how many motorists run red lights (usually for 1-2 seconds after they turn) and stop signs.
Crosswalks: cyclists should slow down for crosswalks. Remember, though, that "full speed" on a bicycle is nothing like full speed in a car. You should pay attention to how many motorists also speed through crosswalks.
Not signalling turning: cyclists should signal all turns unless they are in a situation where they need both hands on the handlebars. As a motorist, you may not be in a position to judge when that is.
Not using bike lane: in most jurisdictions, cyclists are encouraged but not required to use the bike lane. There are good reasons in some cases for not using the bike lane. A bike lane that is next to on-street parking may place cyclists in the door zone[1], making it more dangerous than taking the lane. Bike lanes may also accumulate road debris and be unsafe to ride in.
Hope this helps explain some of why cyclists ride the way they do.
"Red lights: cyclists should stop for all red lights""Crosswalks: cyclists should slow down for crosswalks.""Not signalling turning: cyclists should signal all turns""Not using bike lane"
Hm, I rarely have a bike ride where I do not break all four of these at some time, and regularly break all four in one go. If you approach a crossing where you want to make a left turn (riding on the right side of the road), have a clear view of traffic, and the road is free, it IMO is perfectly natural to leave the bike lane for the middle of the road (one could call that a way of indicating direction), and then diagonally cross the crossing instead of following the bike lane, which would have make me a very sharp turn. Doesn't feel dangerous, either, but maybe that's because I live in a country (probably the country) where about as many people on bicycles as people in cars were killed in traffic in 2014.
The last point, I think, is the most important -- pedestrians in bicycle lanes are to bicyclists what bicyclists on roads are to motorists. In fact I think a lot of the time, even worse. Old ladies are sometimes not even aware they're in the middle of a bike lane.
I've lost count of the number of times I've had to slam on the brakes because a pedestrian walked right into the bike lane without looking. But my closest encounter so far has been with a (particularly stupid) cat, which I missed by mere centimetres.
In the United States, the fines on traffic violations are very high, which makes most drivers obey traffic laws. Since, counties and towns get a percentage of the fines--most drivers(who care about money) really do try to obey traffic laws. Plus, Americans are very prone to litigation.
That said, we do have bicycle accidents. I think a lot of our problem is narrow streets, and DMV expects bicycles to Always obey the same laws motorists are required to, at all times? For instance, my brother got a $200 ticket for riding on a sidewalk at 1:30 p.m. The street was narrow, it was a Friday, and no one was walking on the sidewalk. He thought, 'Why take the risk--I'll just ride on the sidewalk until the street widens up, and then get back on the poorly maintained road?" Well that cost him $200.
Bicycles aren't cars. They don't have the same mass in an accident. They should be given some discretion in what they feel is safe for themselfs, and the general public? That's the problem with traffic laws that don't allow any leeway. (Yes--I know there's some crazy bicyclists, but most of us just want to get to our destination safely, and without a huge Ticket. (I have noticed some motorists who seems jealous of bicyclists? It almost seems like they want to clip us? I'm a big fan a of those small rear view mirrors made for bicyclists. Once you get used to using them; they really are helpful.
Of course not all of them, motor users do much more stupid things on roads, but a) they need to pass an exam and actually know the traffic laws; b) they can loose a driving license and pay high fines; c) they pay insurence and d) even when in accident, the chance of major injuries is radically lower than when riding a bike. Cyclists, on the other hand, don't give a shit and ride however they want. If we allow cyclist on roads, why not allow skateboarders or rollerbladers - what's the difference?
The difference is that when you're behind the wheel of a car your in charge of a machine that can very easily kill other people.
> the chance of major injuries is radically lower than when riding a bike.
The chance of causing major injuries is radically higher. You're confusing that with the chance of the driver themselves be the subject of the injuries.
Of course there's a higher degree of accountability for drivers, as there should be.
I think your understood me wrong - if you hit a car with a car in city, there's a small chance anyone will get seriously hurt, but if you hit a bike with a car, you can kill someone and it doesn't matter if it's your fault or not, it sucks anyway and you can get into serious trouble. So even thought motor users do more stupid shit, the chance someone will get hurt is much smaller, therefore cyclists should be much more careful when driving on roads, but from my experience it's the exact opposite, and it's scary.
Just to add to this, there have been some ideas floating recently to move the cyclers below the streets [1] or above them [2], but while the former is unworkable, it's hard to say if anything comes out of the latter.
A can of fluorescent paint is not going to help much. Most of these accidents happen during the day anyway.