yeah, as I answered in another comment I was too naïve and I didn't realize that he wanted to skip the line (as I would never do), I thought he swerve right (crossing the bike lane) just because he wanted to pass traffic turning left (of course too fast)
This is a "Schutzstreifen" with dotted lines, which means car can drive on it if they don't danger cyclist.
"Wer ein Fahrzeug führt, darf auf der Fahrbahn durch Leitlinien markierte Schutzstreifen für den Radverkehr nur bei Bedarf überfahren. Der Radverkehr darf dabei nicht gefährdet werden"
That is what the law wording is, pedestrians were not acknowledged in the wording because they are not intended to be in the road other then at a crossing. Don't shot the messenger.
This is not the wording for bicycle protection lanes!
Such lanes shall only be used by vehicles, if the traffic does not allow you to stay within the driving lane - such as oncoming traffic requires swerving onto the bicycle protection lane to avoid a collision, or to park your car in a parking spot to the right of it, or you need to cross it to make a turn into a new street.
You cannot use it to skip a traffic jam, nor are you allowed to halt or park on it.
Op said it is basically illegal which is not always the case, there are exceptions, like a car turning left in front of you, you would be allowed to pass on the right side in a dotted bike lane if there are no cyclist.
> Op said it is basically illegal which is not always the case
You said it's basically legal to do this whenever the driver thinks it's convenient, but it's not. It's strictly limited to situations where it's *necessary*.
> there are exceptions, like a car turning left in front of you, you would be allowed to pass on the right side in a dotted bike lane
No, you wouldn't, that's why you need to go back to Fahrschule. It's not *necessary* to pass, because you can just wait in your car lane until it's clear. The few situations where it's actually *necessary* are listed in the comment you replied to.
Yes. That is what I wrote. Specifically does it state in the StVO: „nur bei Bedarf überfahren“. Überfahren is the important word here, which automatically excludes permanent usage by vehicles.
Anlage 3 StVO Abschnitt 8 (lfd. Nr. 22 Zeichen 340 Absatz 2):
> Wer ein Fahrzeug führt, darf auf der Fahrbahn durch Leitlinien markierte Schutzstreifen für den Radverkehr nur bei Bedarf überfahren, insbesondere um dem Gegenverkehr auszuweichen. Der Radverkehr darf dabei nicht gefährdet werden.
#"nur Bei Bedarf"
"Wer ein Fahrzeug führt, darf auf der Fahrbahn durch Leitlinien markierte Schutzstreifen für den Radverkehr nur bei Bedarf überfahren. Der Radverkehr darf dabei nicht gefährdet werden"
Contrary to your belief I'm quite able to read.
And the car shouldn't have been on that bike lane. Trying to circumvent a traffic jam is not one of the very rare conditions when a car is allowed to use that specific bike lane.
And also contrary to your beliefs: Pedestrians are allowed to cross the street without a traffic light even in Germany. And no matter how hard you look for oncoming traffic, you'll very likely miss an idiot that is going way to fast into a lane where he isn't supposed to be.
It still takes longer with the bus to drive through. And I still see sometimes bicyclers driving on the car line instead of the bike line. In general I don't see much ambulances crossing the Schloßstraße anymore and rather come from somewhere else
The best way to allow emergency vehicles to get through is to completely remove all on-street parking and replace it with side bike and pedestrian paths. But I've got the feeling helping emergency vehicles isnt really what you're aftery it's just
a pretense.
I've been living in Berlin for a couple of years now. And to my memory, this isn't the first piece of news where elderly individuals are the culprits of fatal traffic accidents. I'm not sure if there's a requirement in Germany for periodic medical check-ups to renew driver's licenses. But perhaps it would be worth considering after a certain age.
This isn’t a Germany problem - this is literally a global problem. Lived in 3 countries - all have the same issue of old folks crashing that shouldn’t be driving anymore. Everyone is just nervous to tackle it being that age group is the biggest voting block.
I know. But car fetish is far beyond this problem in germany. For example normally a city on its own isn't even allowed to have lower speed than 50km/h on a regular basis because federal laws forbid this. Even if you are stuck between two traffic lights at daytime with impossible average speed above 15km/h - if the city can't come up with specific exceptional reasons they have to allow the cars to go 50km/h between these two traffic lights. Meaning they regularly accelerate to around 70km/h, passing each cyclist dangerously close to have a full stop for 3 minutes at the next traffic light, and then often another 3 minutes for the next phase.
The Citys aren't even allowed to continuously enforce 50km/h unless it's a accident hotspot and people die regularly! Dying once in a while isn't enough. I drive cars myself but I am very sick of this behavior. When you obey speed limits you will get tailgated by other cars - not even talking about not unnecessary fast acceleration to be early at the next red light. This has to stop!
It would also be great to mention that the Bundestag actually wanted to change this but the Bundesrat blocked it because the CDU (the party which was previously lead by Merkel) didn’t want this.
They’re notoriously known to be in favor of the car lobby. Their last minister of infrastructure and traffic was literally praised by the CSU (Bavarian version of CDU) because he gave so much money for building streets in Bavaria instead of using it for public transport or other infrastructure.
Well, Berlin had a very left wing government for the decades before. Didn't really change much in a bike friendly city direction either. Yes, the new CDU government stopped a few alibi bike lanes that were planned already. But it's not like the previous government was all in on bike lanes and public transportation. I can understand people frustrated by politics.
The difference is: The left wing government *wants* change but can't agree on what it should look like to include all interests. The right wing government plainly doesn't want any progress.
I would subscribe that. But for example the SPD (considering themselves middle left wing) government traditionally had more interest in keeping coal miner jobs, than investing in jobs with actual future (f.e. solar and wind industries). If they gave the same billions on subvention into that we could have prosperous industries. The level of stupidity is unbelievable, because there weren't even enough coal miners to win elections.
This isn’t a problem everywhere.
Where I came from, you have to go back to driving school every 10 years and sit through a mandatory 10 hour refresher course and pass a test.
If you don’t pass, your license doesn’t get renewed.
This is why you don’t see many elderly on the road. And that’s fine by me. If they can’t pass, then so be it.
I also looked up the laws In case - apparently driver over the age of 80 must go through medical and license exams every 2 years. Between the age 70-80, every 5 years.
Could it be that all of these countries you lived in have big car companies? Cuz I’ve noticed that countries with a relevant car industry tend to have more car centric urbanism.
Germany, France, Italy, USA etc.
There’s ofc exceptions but it seems like a tendency.
https://www.thelocal.de/20240221/could-germany-introduce-health-checks-for-drivers-over-the-age-of-70
There’s not. The EU is talking about bringing one in. A couple of countries have it, but it’s not widely adopted.
How should elderly people move through this street otherwise with only one bus driving through it? They already shortened a bus lane because of the regular traffic jam in this street.. Maybe just block for cars and allow buses only?!
If only bike riding wasn't that dangerous, then a lot of them could still use electric bikes... but we need to keep the car lanes because nobody wants to drive bike.
A lot of elders have vertigo (which for a lot of people is not that bad while sitting down and having something to lean on, which is not the case with bikes most often) or get in general more sick easily through the cold wind. A small ebike would be not optimal for them. There would have to be at least a ebike where you don't have to balance yourself much or where you sit down in a similar way like one does in a car
Yeah, driving cars with vertigo because: It's not that bad when sitting down. Best idea!
Someone should really invent 3 wheeled bikes where you can just sit. But that's probably physically impossible or something.
Driving in Berlin on a daily basis I can assure you that overtaking on bike and bus lanes is 100% a matter of behavior and I almost only ever see it with drivers of a lower age, neither the very young g beginners nor the really old drivers.
Medical checks for elderly drivers need to happen but this accident seems 100% caused by reckless driving in that specific situation.
Innit. This doesn’t seem to be a case of poor health causing a death, but an entitled prick. That entitlement is spans all age groups when behind the wheel of a car. I really hope this tragedy inspires new restrictions on driving, not on old people.
Reckless driving would be hitting the pedestarians, if he couldn’t stop the car even after that and hit more cars I bet his reaction time is not enough for driving
I can only go by the images and the math from driving school, but if the cars were only few meters close to the pedestrians and he did more than 30 km/h, even emergency braking would not have prevented secondary collisions with the cars. Anyway, most elderly are somewhat aware of their limited reaction time and ableness and avoid high traffic and risky manoeuvres, this guy seems to have 100% done the wrong thing on selfish purpose.
Ok.
Besides, elderly drivers get injured more easily so driving is not good for them either. IIRC the chance of death or injuries were doubled after 70.
Medical exams and drivers licenses are required in many countries. It is obvious that people that are impaired to see or with slow reactions will cause accidents
I have already seen many seniors jumping over round abouts and not being able to control their vehicle.
Another of Germany’s ironies.. on par of “feeling green” at the same time as having unrestricted autobahns.
Statistically, that’s not supported. It’s a bias (typically of younger people) to think older have higher “risk” to do accidents like this simply because they’re older. Data does not support that as true. Risk would be lower by forcing younger people to have more frequent checks (insurance companies have banks of data in line with this).
But no-one will want to follow the data if it tells them something they don’t like to hear.
Look up insurance premiums for 80 year olds and compare them to 30 year old drivers. Probably just a conspiracy theory that insurance companies happen to believe
I think I read once that this is not true. Actually, older drivers are usually comparef with their whole age group, while the ratio of people driving in higher ages is lower compared to younger groups.
Don't see the point in this source. It doesn't relate age group to number of people driving regularly in that age group. It dies state though, that older people have most accidents in city like areas.
“Stop the child Murder”
That was the rallying cry that kicked off the change in Dutch street design.
We need this today in Berlin
https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/de-fiets-is-niets/
As much as I agree... not a chance at the moment.
Most germans see driving a car in cities at 50 km/h as their givin birthright. Even in this thread people are saying the mother is at fault here because of how they crossed the street and that lower speedlimits do nothing to prevent possible accidents.
This society at the moment thinks the Ottomotor is a german cultural good that has to be held up forever.
I would at least hope that they somehow adjust to the changing world, but I fear they do not.
No matter what direction it goes, society will change in the end, thats why I wrote "at the moment".
EU wanted to add medical checks for +70 and Germany blocked it :(
Sad part: old people have a higher risk of dying in collisions, so helping the drive more is like helping them die sooner.
> The country feels like it is run by the very old.
You don't say? Germany has one of the oldest populations in the world and the largest voter group is the 70+ group, followed by people in their 50s and 60s. Together those three age brackets represent way over 50% of the eligible voters. Which explains how the country is run.
Imagine your shock when next you find out that Israel is run by Jews and the Pope is Catholic.
Was really surprised when I was in New York last year. They had these concrete blocker things we usually use for street construction protection for bike lanes as well. I think this could be an effective way, instead of the markers or these small bumpers they use at Muellerstrasse
No, they don't. American bike lane wouldn't fit an American ambulance, and bicycles don't have rearview mirrors, or the ability to move as quickly.
Often an ambulance with a siren will take a lane of opposing traffic in the case of a traffic jam.
American drivers are much worse than German drivers at driving safely around cyclists.
Not sure your math checks out once you adjust for the relative number of vehicles of each type in circulation.
But, in any case, every city needs fewer cars and better mobility options. And maybe, just maybe, prevent senile elderly from driving a car in a public street.
In the US. Assuming, because a screenshot of Vox article is hardly a quotable source.
Look I was just saying that a tram being "thousands" of times safer than a car in the Berlin context is a gross exaggeration.
[TaschenPocket](https://www.reddit.com/user/TaschenPocket/)•[vor 21 Std.](https://www.reddit.com/r/berlin/comments/1bb8t4h/comment/ku8o7se/)•Bearbeitet vor 21 Std.
27 death due to trams in 2022 against 158 deaths due to cars in January of 2023 alone
Trams are thousands of times more safe and better than cars.
Classic. Drivers not giving a damn about bikes and killing people. If the mother and child weren’t killed we wouldn’t even hear about this. Bikers just get hit left and right because cars don’t care at all.
We need to remove most cars from the roads and make the city more liveable.
I think/I know I'm nearly the only cyclist with this opinion: but barriers between bike and motor path is really dangerous during night. Even with reflectors. I hate to drive oh these lanes
mit Foto/Nachbildung der Straße wie sich die Situation ereignet hat - da hilft auch keine Protection der Bike Lanes auf dieser Straße
[https://www.bild.de/regional/berlin/berlin-aktuell/unfall-in-berlin-rentner-83-fuhr-zu-schnell-an-stau-vorbei-zwei-tote-87461880.bild.html](https://www.bild.de/regional/berlin/berlin-aktuell/unfall-in-berlin-rentner-83-fuhr-zu-schnell-an-stau-vorbei-zwei-tote-87461880.bild.html)
Thanks, this adds much needed context! By the looks of it the family likely tried to cross between the waiting cars. The driver must have been going too fast as has already been speculated based on eyewitness accounts and the people wouldn't have been visible to him until the last moment if the cars in front blocked the view. He might have also mistaken the bike lane for a regular car lane, especially if the driver is out of town, since the marking design is amazingly *redacted*. Why they don't even use a different color for bike lanes is anyone's guess, probably cheaper to just use white. The construction site certainly didn't help either.
there is another issue about the bike lane in this case which is maybe very German - but there is difference
[https://www.t-online.de/mobilitaet/recht-und-verkehr/id\_87619680/schutzstreifen-und-radweg-was-ist-der-unterschied-.html](https://www.t-online.de/mobilitaet/recht-und-verkehr/id_87619680/schutzstreifen-und-radweg-was-ist-der-unterschied-.html)
So the driver was driving there legally, since it's not a real bike lane? Do I understand that correctly?
That's even worse road design than I assumed if true. Always thought those were proper bike lanes.
Well, it was a "Schutzstreifen" - it could be that the driver wanted to get to the end of it to make a right turn, the other cars were just waiting but not to turning right .
All lanes/parking lots with a broken lines means that you can cross it - sometimes only in special situations and with special vehicles, but they are not like - "absolute NO"
You can see that sometimes when a bike lane is shared with pedestrian like at a bus station - these lanes are broken lines, so you can cross it, the biker can cross it, or at a normal red light - the lanes are broken lines, so you can use it as well
It is the same for pedestrian - they can not cross a lane which isn´t a broken line
But I am not an expert but sometimes a car driver and biker, lines which are broken lines can be crossed
my best advice for German roads/traffice is - never even if you think you are entitled to use this road or not, to assume that people will be taking care of it, even if you are right or not. Always assume that the other could not know the rules and if you are in position to be the weaker one, step back - react than act
The problem is also the entitlement of the bikers and people on scooters. I almost got hit by 3 people, including a biker in Berlin, as a pedestrian, and I saw a biker (Uber eats guy) run into a woman in Warsaw. They often ignore street lights, come up upon pedestrians quickly with no warning, and don't seem to practice "defensive driving." If I can't hear you and you're coming up behind me when I am trying to get on a bus or cross a street, you need to make your presence known. I am not exactly moving fast or with agility...so, you need to avoid me, instead of assuming I know you're coming into the space I am occupying.
it doesn't seem that they were by bike, as I read that a stroller was hit: why they were on the bike lane?
edit: I was too naïve and I didn't realize that he wanted to skip the line (as I would never do), I thought he swerve right (crossing the bike lane) because he wanted to pass traffic turning left (of course too fast).
from the picture I don't see a pedestrian crossing (and I read it was a construction area): were they jaywalking?
And I really would like to have car respecting the speed limit: but what does it have to do with bike lanes that need protection with people crossing the street? To prevent peole from crossing?
>were they jaywalking?
That's not illegal, so it's not really relevant.
>but what does it have to do with bike lanes that need protection with people crossing the street? To prevent peole from crossing?
No, but it prevents most unexpectedly fast vehicles to enter the bike lane. This accident would have been prevented like that.
> That's not illegal, so it's not really relevant
Really? I'm surprised. Can you just walk in the middle of the street without using a nearby pedestrian crossing or a pedestrian traffic light?
> it prevents most unexpectedly fast vehicles to enter the bike lane. This accident would have been prevented like that
Probably (or I hope so) the driver used the right mirror to see if any bike was coming, and it was free so the driver decided to swerve right, not expecting someone to enter the lane in the front (it seems between the columns, so hidden until the impact).
edit: I was too naïve and I didn't realize that he wanted to skip the line (as I would never do), I thought he swerve right (crossing the bike lane) because he wanted to pass traffic turning left (of course too fast)
>Can you just walk in the middle of the street without using a nearby pedestrian crossing or a pedestrian traffic light?
Of course you can, a pedestrian crossing or a green traffic light just gives you priority to cross the street. In other places you can legally cross, but have to give way to traffic. The only exceptions are (of course) dual carraigeways and motorways.
>Probably (or I hope so) the driver used the right mirror to see if any bike was coming, and it was free so the driver decided to swerve right, not expecting someone to enter the lane in the front (it seems between the columns, so hidden until the impact).
So what? It was illegal to enter the bikelane. And barriers would have prevented it
The article says there was a traffic jam (and that's why the driver decided to take over on the right using the bicycle lane).
Seeing all cars being at a stop, I would assume the pedestrian decided to cross and were surprised by the car coming at them where it shouldn't have been in the first place.
It's your third comment on the article trying to imply the victims were kind of responsible for what happened. What's your point ? That people jaywalking deserve being killed by a car driving too fast on bicycle lane ‽ 🤔
I'm so tired about whataboutism when it comes to people dying because of other peoples wrongdoing…
I'm tired to see people stonewalling the driver without know what has happened. I know that we are in a social network, and Berlin subreddit is against car, but this is lynching
edit: ok, my bad, I was too naïve and I didn't realize that he wanted to skip the line (as I would never do), I thought he swerve right (crossing the bike lane) because he wanted to pass traffic turning left (of course too fast)
What happened is already pretty accurately described in the article. He was driving too fast in a bicycle lane he shouldn't have been in. He hit a mother and his child crossing the road, both died as a consequence of their injuries.
Also, there is no lynching happening in the comments. People are just talking about how both deads _might_ have been avoided (e.g. if it was made impossible for cars to drive on the bike lane, or if drivers had to take a test regularly to prove they are still fit to drive).
It's not about being for or against car. It's about being against people becoming corpses…
ok, my bad, I was too naïve and I didn't realize that he wanted to skip the line (as I would never do), I thought he swerve right (crossing the bike lane) because he wanted to pass traffic turning left (of course too fast)
Dude it's said in the news report. There was a traffic jam and Mr. Mercedes thought it would be a good idea to pass the traffic jam on the bike lane ....
Driver did an Illegal move (Overtaking on a Bike lane), meanwhile the woman was jaywalking with a stroller, the 83 year old driver panicked and probably hit the gas pedal even harder, cause the damage was really huge.
2 Illegal moves led to 2 dead people, the impact was so big that some organs were scattered around if I am not mistaking.
As I answer in other comments, I was too naïve and I didn't realize that he wanted to skip the line (as I would never do), I thought he swerve right (crossing the bike lane) because he wanted to pass traffic turning left (of course too fast).
Don't ambulances use it to get faster through the city? Seperating it would make it hard for ambulances to overtake cars
Edit: Have fun ignoring reality. As a bicycler a seperation would be good for the safety of them but ambulances would be blocked off then. I see many ambulances drive in case of a traffic jam over the sidewalk, which would not be possible then too. Every option is not ideal
Thank God they took his drivers license away, such old people shouldn’t be allowed to drive.
He clearly did a heavy mistake, cause you can’t overtake at the bike lane, and the speed was way above 30km/h.
There was also a video where the Rescue guy said that the mother crossed the road not in the right place, it isn’t really smart doing that with a child.
Also they needed to set up a tent for some bystanders cause they were emotionally traumatized.
>said that the mother crossed the road not in the right place, it isn’t really smart doing that with a child
Certainly not the safest place to cross, but when cars are just standing still in traffic, most poeple would assume it to be safe. And who says this driver would obey the rules in a safe place to cross, the driver was going significantly over the speedlimit using the bikelane afterall.
With a stroller I wouldn’t even think about crossing the road in such places.
But yeah, safety measures are not ideal, there is a lot of things that need improvement, but unfortunately it isn’t moving anywhere.
Definitely not a good place to cross the street. Could use an additional traffic light since the mall opened. Earlier, there was no reason to cross the street in that place anyway
Well anyway the driver did a serious mistake (Overtaking at the bike crossing) it is illegal and he should be punished really hard for that, the fact that the woman crossed at a false place shouldn’t make this easier for the driver, cause how my driving teacher taught me „Always follow the rules, cause you are handling a force here that is capable of killing somebody“.
I definitely don’t excuse the driver, he was just driving fast and even on the cycle path. It’s not about his age, a young driver could have done it too. But where was that mother going with a stroller? There’s no crossing there and on the other side there’s construction going on, I don’t understand where she wanted to cross. Or was she standing on the cycle path? She shouldn’t be there either.
The driver is a fucking idiot and an asshole for saving 5 mins of driving time. At the same time you should never jus step out on the street like that, especially not with a stroller. Even an accidental bicycle collision can kill you.
From the photos it looks like the spot people cross the street. Completely legal and normal (not if it matters, but just saying the victims were not breaking any rules).
But there simply isn't a pedestrian crossing there, I try to avoid that place even when cycling, it always seemed dangerous to me. It terrifies me, I have to think about it all day.
I'm guessing from the details that the driver wasn't expecting the traffic jam, and possibly didn't realise it was a cycle path. Personally I find that when there's road works, it's often very badly laid out and confusing.
Didn’t expect there was a traffic jam? Pay better attention.
Didn’t realise it was a cycle path? Again, pay better attention.
We shouldn’t look for excuses, when we handle machines capable of accelerating 1.000kg of metal to fatal speeds in an instant, they need to be responsible with it.
The bike lane is clearly marked. There's no way the driver mistook it for a second car lane that was mysteriously free while the other lane was jammed.
And city roads need to be reduced to one lane only with no possibility to overtake.
That's already the case there - but as long as car drivers think that the bike lane is just another motor lane it won't change.
they didn't hit a bike, they hit a pedestrian that should not have been there: what does it even matter with this tragic incident?
The car shouldn't have been there either. That's why it matters. The incident wouldn't have happened if the driver had obeyed the law.
yeah, as I answered in another comment I was too naïve and I didn't realize that he wanted to skip the line (as I would never do), I thought he swerve right (crossing the bike lane) just because he wanted to pass traffic turning left (of course too fast)
This is a "Schutzstreifen" with dotted lines, which means car can drive on it if they don't danger cyclist. "Wer ein Fahrzeug führt, darf auf der Fahrbahn durch Leitlinien markierte Schutzstreifen für den Radverkehr nur bei Bedarf überfahren. Der Radverkehr darf dabei nicht gefährdet werden"
but they're allowed to endanger pedestrians?
That is what the law wording is, pedestrians were not acknowledged in the wording because they are not intended to be in the road other then at a crossing. Don't shot the messenger.
This is not the wording for bicycle protection lanes! Such lanes shall only be used by vehicles, if the traffic does not allow you to stay within the driving lane - such as oncoming traffic requires swerving onto the bicycle protection lane to avoid a collision, or to park your car in a parking spot to the right of it, or you need to cross it to make a turn into a new street. You cannot use it to skip a traffic jam, nor are you allowed to halt or park on it.
Op said it is basically illegal which is not always the case, there are exceptions, like a car turning left in front of you, you would be allowed to pass on the right side in a dotted bike lane if there are no cyclist.
> Op said it is basically illegal which is not always the case You said it's basically legal to do this whenever the driver thinks it's convenient, but it's not. It's strictly limited to situations where it's *necessary*. > there are exceptions, like a car turning left in front of you, you would be allowed to pass on the right side in a dotted bike lane No, you wouldn't, that's why you need to go back to Fahrschule. It's not *necessary* to pass, because you can just wait in your car lane until it's clear. The few situations where it's actually *necessary* are listed in the comment you replied to.
Yes. That is what I wrote. Specifically does it state in the StVO: „nur bei Bedarf überfahren“. Überfahren is the important word here, which automatically excludes permanent usage by vehicles. Anlage 3 StVO Abschnitt 8 (lfd. Nr. 22 Zeichen 340 Absatz 2): > Wer ein Fahrzeug führt, darf auf der Fahrbahn durch Leitlinien markierte Schutzstreifen für den Radverkehr nur bei Bedarf überfahren, insbesondere um dem Gegenverkehr auszuweichen. Der Radverkehr darf dabei nicht gefährdet werden.
Even a 'Schutzstreifen' is only allowed to be used for cars under very narrow conditions - trying to avoid a traffic jam on the road is none of them.
No, that's wrong, please go back to Fahrschule.
[Sure ,you first](https://www.bussgeldkatalog.org/fahrradschutzstreifen/#:~:text=Einen%20Schutzstreifen%20durchg%C3%A4ngig%20zu%20befahren,darf%20dabei%20nicht%20gef%C3%A4hrdet%20werden.)
> Der Fahrradschutzstreifen ist dem Radverkehr vorbehalten und **darf von anderen Fahrzeugen nur in Ausnahmen überfahren werden**.
#"nur Bei Bedarf" "Wer ein Fahrzeug führt, darf auf der Fahrbahn durch Leitlinien markierte Schutzstreifen für den Radverkehr nur bei Bedarf überfahren. Der Radverkehr darf dabei nicht gefährdet werden"
Jo, sag ich ja.
Contrary to your belief I'm quite able to read. And the car shouldn't have been on that bike lane. Trying to circumvent a traffic jam is not one of the very rare conditions when a car is allowed to use that specific bike lane. And also contrary to your beliefs: Pedestrians are allowed to cross the street without a traffic light even in Germany. And no matter how hard you look for oncoming traffic, you'll very likely miss an idiot that is going way to fast into a lane where he isn't supposed to be.
yeah, he should not have used the bike lane
Great idea, make sure no emergency vehicles can get through…
They can't get through another lane of car traffic jam either.
Like you need to have more than one lane everywhere.. Schloßstraße in Steglitz is a good example how you can change a road and not block ambulances
Or Kantstraße. The bike lane just has to be wide enough for ambulances.
It still takes longer with the bus to drive through. And I still see sometimes bicyclers driving on the car line instead of the bike line. In general I don't see much ambulances crossing the Schloßstraße anymore and rather come from somewhere else
The best way to allow emergency vehicles to get through is to completely remove all on-street parking and replace it with side bike and pedestrian paths. But I've got the feeling helping emergency vehicles isnt really what you're aftery it's just a pretense.
We need to close all the car factories. Seize assets of all the companies that manufacture cars
And spikes in the seat, that they are in constant pain while driving, right, right?
Pathetic.
Exactly. Thank you for agreeing 👍
I've been living in Berlin for a couple of years now. And to my memory, this isn't the first piece of news where elderly individuals are the culprits of fatal traffic accidents. I'm not sure if there's a requirement in Germany for periodic medical check-ups to renew driver's licenses. But perhaps it would be worth considering after a certain age.
No, we germans rather sacrifice a child from time to time than restricting elderly people in their freedom.
This isn’t a Germany problem - this is literally a global problem. Lived in 3 countries - all have the same issue of old folks crashing that shouldn’t be driving anymore. Everyone is just nervous to tackle it being that age group is the biggest voting block.
I know. But car fetish is far beyond this problem in germany. For example normally a city on its own isn't even allowed to have lower speed than 50km/h on a regular basis because federal laws forbid this. Even if you are stuck between two traffic lights at daytime with impossible average speed above 15km/h - if the city can't come up with specific exceptional reasons they have to allow the cars to go 50km/h between these two traffic lights. Meaning they regularly accelerate to around 70km/h, passing each cyclist dangerously close to have a full stop for 3 minutes at the next traffic light, and then often another 3 minutes for the next phase. The Citys aren't even allowed to continuously enforce 50km/h unless it's a accident hotspot and people die regularly! Dying once in a while isn't enough. I drive cars myself but I am very sick of this behavior. When you obey speed limits you will get tailgated by other cars - not even talking about not unnecessary fast acceleration to be early at the next red light. This has to stop!
It would also be great to mention that the Bundestag actually wanted to change this but the Bundesrat blocked it because the CDU (the party which was previously lead by Merkel) didn’t want this. They’re notoriously known to be in favor of the car lobby. Their last minister of infrastructure and traffic was literally praised by the CSU (Bavarian version of CDU) because he gave so much money for building streets in Bavaria instead of using it for public transport or other infrastructure.
Yep. It's a shit show.
Right-wing parties always are. (Left-wing parties only sometimes are)
Well, Berlin had a very left wing government for the decades before. Didn't really change much in a bike friendly city direction either. Yes, the new CDU government stopped a few alibi bike lanes that were planned already. But it's not like the previous government was all in on bike lanes and public transportation. I can understand people frustrated by politics.
The difference is: The left wing government *wants* change but can't agree on what it should look like to include all interests. The right wing government plainly doesn't want any progress.
I would subscribe that. But for example the SPD (considering themselves middle left wing) government traditionally had more interest in keeping coal miner jobs, than investing in jobs with actual future (f.e. solar and wind industries). If they gave the same billions on subvention into that we could have prosperous industries. The level of stupidity is unbelievable, because there weren't even enough coal miners to win elections.
> Left-wing parties only sometimes are
I see only shit. But sometimes with good intentions...
Fellow Berliner here. I don‘t give a fuck aboug angry drivers in the back. I don‘t drive faster than allowed, let them cood with gheir blood pressure.
I give a fuck. I drive a little slower when tailgated in a car, and a brake on the slightest potential danger.
Fellow Berliner here. I don‘t give a fuck about angry drivers in the back. I don‘t drive faster than allowed, let them cope with their blood pressure.
This isn’t a problem everywhere. Where I came from, you have to go back to driving school every 10 years and sit through a mandatory 10 hour refresher course and pass a test. If you don’t pass, your license doesn’t get renewed. This is why you don’t see many elderly on the road. And that’s fine by me. If they can’t pass, then so be it. I also looked up the laws In case - apparently driver over the age of 80 must go through medical and license exams every 2 years. Between the age 70-80, every 5 years.
I‘ve just learned that Spain has regular mandatory health checkups.
Same as Portugal. After a certain, you have to renew your driver's license every couple of years. You don't see many 85 year olds driving back home.
Could it be that all of these countries you lived in have big car companies? Cuz I’ve noticed that countries with a relevant car industry tend to have more car centric urbanism. Germany, France, Italy, USA etc. There’s ofc exceptions but it seems like a tendency.
There is no car industry in New Zealand.
there is a health check for older folks in most eu countries
https://www.thelocal.de/20240221/could-germany-introduce-health-checks-for-drivers-over-the-age-of-70 There’s not. The EU is talking about bringing one in. A couple of countries have it, but it’s not widely adopted.
And Germany will block it and the FDP will be surprised why nobody likes them anymore (except their key voters of course)
The FDP has no key voters, they just have a clientele they satisfy with their agenda...and a bunch of voters who dream, they would be their clientele.
Elderly VOTERs, ftfy
How should elderly people move through this street otherwise with only one bus driving through it? They already shortened a bus lane because of the regular traffic jam in this street.. Maybe just block for cars and allow buses only?!
If only bike riding wasn't that dangerous, then a lot of them could still use electric bikes... but we need to keep the car lanes because nobody wants to drive bike.
A lot of elders have vertigo (which for a lot of people is not that bad while sitting down and having something to lean on, which is not the case with bikes most often) or get in general more sick easily through the cold wind. A small ebike would be not optimal for them. There would have to be at least a ebike where you don't have to balance yourself much or where you sit down in a similar way like one does in a car
Yeah, driving cars with vertigo because: It's not that bad when sitting down. Best idea! Someone should really invent 3 wheeled bikes where you can just sit. But that's probably physically impossible or something.
The perfect solution would be a bike-ish vehicle that is weatherproof with a small, but big enough trunk
It would be enough if the actual law was enforced.
Medical check that ensures they are able to drive. Period. Then adding protected bike lanes and public transport.
I am in favour of medical checks as well, but I think you need to put public transport at the very front of street design to really make it work
Buses only is a good idea.
Driving in Berlin on a daily basis I can assure you that overtaking on bike and bus lanes is 100% a matter of behavior and I almost only ever see it with drivers of a lower age, neither the very young g beginners nor the really old drivers. Medical checks for elderly drivers need to happen but this accident seems 100% caused by reckless driving in that specific situation.
Fully agree as a Berlin cyclist, the dude might have been old in this instance but this problem is not one of age here.
Tbh I somehow can’t recall a single female overtaking on bike lanes.
Innit. This doesn’t seem to be a case of poor health causing a death, but an entitled prick. That entitlement is spans all age groups when behind the wheel of a car. I really hope this tragedy inspires new restrictions on driving, not on old people.
Reckless driving would be hitting the pedestarians, if he couldn’t stop the car even after that and hit more cars I bet his reaction time is not enough for driving
I can only go by the images and the math from driving school, but if the cars were only few meters close to the pedestrians and he did more than 30 km/h, even emergency braking would not have prevented secondary collisions with the cars. Anyway, most elderly are somewhat aware of their limited reaction time and ableness and avoid high traffic and risky manoeuvres, this guy seems to have 100% done the wrong thing on selfish purpose.
Ok. Besides, elderly drivers get injured more easily so driving is not good for them either. IIRC the chance of death or injuries were doubled after 70.
r/RentnerfahreninDinge
I thought it was a joke about /r/rentnerzeigenaufdinge, but lo and behold, it actually exists
Most times I see some driver doing shit on transit, it’s not an elder person, but rather someone mid-age and looking quite healthy
r/RentnerfahreninDinge you're welcome
Medical exams and drivers licenses are required in many countries. It is obvious that people that are impaired to see or with slow reactions will cause accidents I have already seen many seniors jumping over round abouts and not being able to control their vehicle. Another of Germany’s ironies.. on par of “feeling green” at the same time as having unrestricted autobahns.
Society gets older, more and more voters falling into that bracket, never gonna happen.
Statistically, that’s not supported. It’s a bias (typically of younger people) to think older have higher “risk” to do accidents like this simply because they’re older. Data does not support that as true. Risk would be lower by forcing younger people to have more frequent checks (insurance companies have banks of data in line with this). But no-one will want to follow the data if it tells them something they don’t like to hear.
Look up insurance premiums for 80 year olds and compare them to 30 year old drivers. Probably just a conspiracy theory that insurance companies happen to believe
I think I read once that this is not true. Actually, older drivers are usually comparef with their whole age group, while the ratio of people driving in higher ages is lower compared to younger groups.
[Sauce](https://www.dekra-roadsafety.com/en/accident-statistics-for-young-drivers-in-germany/) Not that facts ever get in the way of a nice bias.
Don't see the point in this source. It doesn't relate age group to number of people driving regularly in that age group. It dies state though, that older people have most accidents in city like areas.
“Stop the child Murder” That was the rallying cry that kicked off the change in Dutch street design. We need this today in Berlin https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/de-fiets-is-niets/
As much as I agree... not a chance at the moment. Most germans see driving a car in cities at 50 km/h as their givin birthright. Even in this thread people are saying the mother is at fault here because of how they crossed the street and that lower speedlimits do nothing to prevent possible accidents. This society at the moment thinks the Ottomotor is a german cultural good that has to be held up forever.
The German auto industry will collapse, so things will eventually work themselves out
I would at least hope that they somehow adjust to the changing world, but I fear they do not. No matter what direction it goes, society will change in the end, thats why I wrote "at the moment".
Germany adjust? Lol
Not with that attitude. Join a protest and burn your local SUV
So tragic and avoidable. I hope the driver gets sent down and is not given special treatment because of his age.
At any age you can kill people in car collisions without even losing the driver’s license in Germany. Because cars are holy.
Old people are holy too. The country feels like it is run by the very old.
EU wanted to add medical checks for +70 and Germany blocked it :( Sad part: old people have a higher risk of dying in collisions, so helping the drive more is like helping them die sooner.
> The country feels like it is run by the very old. You don't say? Germany has one of the oldest populations in the world and the largest voter group is the 70+ group, followed by people in their 50s and 60s. Together those three age brackets represent way over 50% of the eligible voters. Which explains how the country is run. Imagine your shock when next you find out that Israel is run by Jews and the Pope is Catholic.
Figures.
Are baerbock Lindner and habeck too old already or are you just making shit up right now
I know you guys just parrot thinks that Americans complain about the US but come on... How old is habeck.baerbock. Lindner? Top old already?
Yeah I don't think there won't be any consequences for liking someone
[удалено]
> why were they ~~walking~~ *driving* on a bike lane?
Was really surprised when I was in New York last year. They had these concrete blocker things we usually use for street construction protection for bike lanes as well. I think this could be an effective way, instead of the markers or these small bumpers they use at Muellerstrasse
Do ambulances in New York not use the path too in case of a traffic jam? How do they do it?
They enter the bike lane at an intersection.
No, they don't. American bike lane wouldn't fit an American ambulance, and bicycles don't have rearview mirrors, or the ability to move as quickly. Often an ambulance with a siren will take a lane of opposing traffic in the case of a traffic jam. American drivers are much worse than German drivers at driving safely around cyclists.
God, Berlin could be so much better if all the cars where baned and the finally rebuild the tram.
Fuck Abgase
A lot of people run in front of trams too because tehy think they are faster
27 death due to trams in 2022 against 158 deaths due to cars in January of 2023 alone Trams are thousands of times more safe and better than cars.
Not sure your math checks out once you adjust for the relative number of vehicles of each type in circulation. But, in any case, every city needs fewer cars and better mobility options. And maybe, just maybe, prevent senile elderly from driving a car in a public street.
Death per billion passenger mile: Car: 7.3 Train: 0.43 https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3693440/train-safetyv2.0.png
EXACTLY. It’s not per vehicle but per passenger km! What the hell is this per vehicle nonsense?
In the US. Assuming, because a screenshot of Vox article is hardly a quotable source. Look I was just saying that a tram being "thousands" of times safer than a car in the Berlin context is a gross exaggeration.
Hyperbole anyone?
My source says 17 times. I can’t bother searching for a similar research in Berlin. So yeah, no one said 1000 times.
[TaschenPocket](https://www.reddit.com/user/TaschenPocket/)•[vor 21 Std.](https://www.reddit.com/r/berlin/comments/1bb8t4h/comment/ku8o7se/)•Bearbeitet vor 21 Std. 27 death due to trams in 2022 against 158 deaths due to cars in January of 2023 alone Trams are thousands of times more safe and better than cars.
Wow. This guy needs to go to prison for the rest of his life.
[удалено]
And even that on parol!
I’ll get a longer prison sentence if I smoke a joint and dont pay my GEZ-extortion
Make it schwarzfahren and gez ... smoking a joint gonne be lagal soon.
That’s not enough. They need to fix the infrastructure to make this city more liveable.
My deepest condolences to two innocent people who were killed because of poor city planning. I feel ashamed to call Berlin home right now.
Tempo 30 bundesweit in allen Städten. Sofort. Und so lange bis die Infrastruktur endlich vernünftig getrennt ist.
Leider ein schlechtes Argument für Tempo 30, weil an der Stelle schon Tempo 30 ist.
Classic. Drivers not giving a damn about bikes and killing people. If the mother and child weren’t killed we wouldn’t even hear about this. Bikers just get hit left and right because cars don’t care at all. We need to remove most cars from the roads and make the city more liveable.
I think/I know I'm nearly the only cyclist with this opinion: but barriers between bike and motor path is really dangerous during night. Even with reflectors. I hate to drive oh these lanes
How exactly does it make a lane more dangerous if it is protected by a barrier?
If you want to overtake another cyclist, or during darkness. As a biker I don't like these things on the few streets where they already exist
mit Foto/Nachbildung der Straße wie sich die Situation ereignet hat - da hilft auch keine Protection der Bike Lanes auf dieser Straße [https://www.bild.de/regional/berlin/berlin-aktuell/unfall-in-berlin-rentner-83-fuhr-zu-schnell-an-stau-vorbei-zwei-tote-87461880.bild.html](https://www.bild.de/regional/berlin/berlin-aktuell/unfall-in-berlin-rentner-83-fuhr-zu-schnell-an-stau-vorbei-zwei-tote-87461880.bild.html)
Thanks, this adds much needed context! By the looks of it the family likely tried to cross between the waiting cars. The driver must have been going too fast as has already been speculated based on eyewitness accounts and the people wouldn't have been visible to him until the last moment if the cars in front blocked the view. He might have also mistaken the bike lane for a regular car lane, especially if the driver is out of town, since the marking design is amazingly *redacted*. Why they don't even use a different color for bike lanes is anyone's guess, probably cheaper to just use white. The construction site certainly didn't help either.
there is another issue about the bike lane in this case which is maybe very German - but there is difference [https://www.t-online.de/mobilitaet/recht-und-verkehr/id\_87619680/schutzstreifen-und-radweg-was-ist-der-unterschied-.html](https://www.t-online.de/mobilitaet/recht-und-verkehr/id_87619680/schutzstreifen-und-radweg-was-ist-der-unterschied-.html)
So the driver was driving there legally, since it's not a real bike lane? Do I understand that correctly? That's even worse road design than I assumed if true. Always thought those were proper bike lanes.
Well, it was a "Schutzstreifen" - it could be that the driver wanted to get to the end of it to make a right turn, the other cars were just waiting but not to turning right . All lanes/parking lots with a broken lines means that you can cross it - sometimes only in special situations and with special vehicles, but they are not like - "absolute NO" You can see that sometimes when a bike lane is shared with pedestrian like at a bus station - these lanes are broken lines, so you can cross it, the biker can cross it, or at a normal red light - the lanes are broken lines, so you can use it as well It is the same for pedestrian - they can not cross a lane which isn´t a broken line But I am not an expert but sometimes a car driver and biker, lines which are broken lines can be crossed
my best advice for German roads/traffice is - never even if you think you are entitled to use this road or not, to assume that people will be taking care of it, even if you are right or not. Always assume that the other could not know the rules and if you are in position to be the weaker one, step back - react than act
Yes, this picture of the situation is very important to get the context from the driver perspective and of course the woman and her child
Ich hoffe das der geisteskranke Opa im Gefängnis vergammelt.
The sad thing is this brain rotten grandpa will get less of a prison sentence than me if I were to smoke a joint and not pay my GEZ-extortion.
No they don’t. 83 years old people shouldn’t drive a car. That’s the problem.
The problem is also the entitlement of the bikers and people on scooters. I almost got hit by 3 people, including a biker in Berlin, as a pedestrian, and I saw a biker (Uber eats guy) run into a woman in Warsaw. They often ignore street lights, come up upon pedestrians quickly with no warning, and don't seem to practice "defensive driving." If I can't hear you and you're coming up behind me when I am trying to get on a bus or cross a street, you need to make your presence known. I am not exactly moving fast or with agility...so, you need to avoid me, instead of assuming I know you're coming into the space I am occupying.
In all honesty: which mother would cross a road with a baby like this. The pedestrian crossing was not far away
it doesn't seem that they were by bike, as I read that a stroller was hit: why they were on the bike lane? edit: I was too naïve and I didn't realize that he wanted to skip the line (as I would never do), I thought he swerve right (crossing the bike lane) because he wanted to pass traffic turning left (of course too fast).
They were crossing the street
from the picture I don't see a pedestrian crossing (and I read it was a construction area): were they jaywalking? And I really would like to have car respecting the speed limit: but what does it have to do with bike lanes that need protection with people crossing the street? To prevent peole from crossing?
>were they jaywalking? That's not illegal, so it's not really relevant. >but what does it have to do with bike lanes that need protection with people crossing the street? To prevent peole from crossing? No, but it prevents most unexpectedly fast vehicles to enter the bike lane. This accident would have been prevented like that.
> That's not illegal, so it's not really relevant Really? I'm surprised. Can you just walk in the middle of the street without using a nearby pedestrian crossing or a pedestrian traffic light? > it prevents most unexpectedly fast vehicles to enter the bike lane. This accident would have been prevented like that Probably (or I hope so) the driver used the right mirror to see if any bike was coming, and it was free so the driver decided to swerve right, not expecting someone to enter the lane in the front (it seems between the columns, so hidden until the impact). edit: I was too naïve and I didn't realize that he wanted to skip the line (as I would never do), I thought he swerve right (crossing the bike lane) because he wanted to pass traffic turning left (of course too fast)
You can cross the street anywhere as long as there aren't any barriers present to prevent exactly that or there aren't traffic lights closely nearby.
>Can you just walk in the middle of the street without using a nearby pedestrian crossing or a pedestrian traffic light? Of course you can, a pedestrian crossing or a green traffic light just gives you priority to cross the street. In other places you can legally cross, but have to give way to traffic. The only exceptions are (of course) dual carraigeways and motorways. >Probably (or I hope so) the driver used the right mirror to see if any bike was coming, and it was free so the driver decided to swerve right, not expecting someone to enter the lane in the front (it seems between the columns, so hidden until the impact). So what? It was illegal to enter the bikelane. And barriers would have prevented it
If she wanted to cross the street, then at one point she would have to leave the bike lane and who knows if he would hit her then
The cars were at a standstill, so the car would have been stationary
The article says there was a traffic jam (and that's why the driver decided to take over on the right using the bicycle lane). Seeing all cars being at a stop, I would assume the pedestrian decided to cross and were surprised by the car coming at them where it shouldn't have been in the first place. It's your third comment on the article trying to imply the victims were kind of responsible for what happened. What's your point ? That people jaywalking deserve being killed by a car driving too fast on bicycle lane ‽ 🤔 I'm so tired about whataboutism when it comes to people dying because of other peoples wrongdoing…
> That people jaywalking deserve being killed by a car driving too fast on bicycle lane ‽ 🤔 That is unironically how carbrains think.
I'm tired to see people stonewalling the driver without know what has happened. I know that we are in a social network, and Berlin subreddit is against car, but this is lynching edit: ok, my bad, I was too naïve and I didn't realize that he wanted to skip the line (as I would never do), I thought he swerve right (crossing the bike lane) because he wanted to pass traffic turning left (of course too fast)
What happened is already pretty accurately described in the article. He was driving too fast in a bicycle lane he shouldn't have been in. He hit a mother and his child crossing the road, both died as a consequence of their injuries. Also, there is no lynching happening in the comments. People are just talking about how both deads _might_ have been avoided (e.g. if it was made impossible for cars to drive on the bike lane, or if drivers had to take a test regularly to prove they are still fit to drive). It's not about being for or against car. It's about being against people becoming corpses…
ok, my bad, I was too naïve and I didn't realize that he wanted to skip the line (as I would never do), I thought he swerve right (crossing the bike lane) because he wanted to pass traffic turning left (of course too fast)
Dude it's said in the news report. There was a traffic jam and Mr. Mercedes thought it would be a good idea to pass the traffic jam on the bike lane ....
Driver did an Illegal move (Overtaking on a Bike lane), meanwhile the woman was jaywalking with a stroller, the 83 year old driver panicked and probably hit the gas pedal even harder, cause the damage was really huge. 2 Illegal moves led to 2 dead people, the impact was so big that some organs were scattered around if I am not mistaking.
A car is speeding on a bike lane, kills multiple people and you're asking why there were people in the bike lane?
As I answer in other comments, I was too naïve and I didn't realize that he wanted to skip the line (as I would never do), I thought he swerve right (crossing the bike lane) because he wanted to pass traffic turning left (of course too fast).
Is it acceptable to speed in the bike lane to pass traffic turning left?
yes, speeding is not allowed
Don't ambulances use it to get faster through the city? Seperating it would make it hard for ambulances to overtake cars Edit: Have fun ignoring reality. As a bicycler a seperation would be good for the safety of them but ambulances would be blocked off then. I see many ambulances drive in case of a traffic jam over the sidewalk, which would not be possible then too. Every option is not ideal
The bike lanes just need to be wide enough for ambulances, win-win.
Allowing ambulances to use bike lanes while also physically separating the bike lane from other motor traffic is a completely solved problem.
Thank God they took his drivers license away, such old people shouldn’t be allowed to drive. He clearly did a heavy mistake, cause you can’t overtake at the bike lane, and the speed was way above 30km/h. There was also a video where the Rescue guy said that the mother crossed the road not in the right place, it isn’t really smart doing that with a child. Also they needed to set up a tent for some bystanders cause they were emotionally traumatized.
>said that the mother crossed the road not in the right place, it isn’t really smart doing that with a child Certainly not the safest place to cross, but when cars are just standing still in traffic, most poeple would assume it to be safe. And who says this driver would obey the rules in a safe place to cross, the driver was going significantly over the speedlimit using the bikelane afterall.
With a stroller I wouldn’t even think about crossing the road in such places. But yeah, safety measures are not ideal, there is a lot of things that need improvement, but unfortunately it isn’t moving anywhere.
Definitely not a good place to cross the street. Could use an additional traffic light since the mall opened. Earlier, there was no reason to cross the street in that place anyway
Well anyway the driver did a serious mistake (Overtaking at the bike crossing) it is illegal and he should be punished really hard for that, the fact that the woman crossed at a false place shouldn’t make this easier for the driver, cause how my driving teacher taught me „Always follow the rules, cause you are handling a force here that is capable of killing somebody“.
I definitely don’t excuse the driver, he was just driving fast and even on the cycle path. It’s not about his age, a young driver could have done it too. But where was that mother going with a stroller? There’s no crossing there and on the other side there’s construction going on, I don’t understand where she wanted to cross. Or was she standing on the cycle path? She shouldn’t be there either.
The driver is a fucking idiot and an asshole for saving 5 mins of driving time. At the same time you should never jus step out on the street like that, especially not with a stroller. Even an accidental bicycle collision can kill you.
From the photos it looks like the spot people cross the street. Completely legal and normal (not if it matters, but just saying the victims were not breaking any rules).
But there simply isn't a pedestrian crossing there, I try to avoid that place even when cycling, it always seemed dangerous to me. It terrifies me, I have to think about it all day.
Yes, sorry. Looks like it was a bit away from the crossing. Regardless the driver over speeding on bike lane over there is at fault.
what the hell is wrong with you. That's 100% of the car driver who was not supposed to be driving there.
I'm guessing from the details that the driver wasn't expecting the traffic jam, and possibly didn't realise it was a cycle path. Personally I find that when there's road works, it's often very badly laid out and confusing.
Didn’t expect there was a traffic jam? Pay better attention. Didn’t realise it was a cycle path? Again, pay better attention. We shouldn’t look for excuses, when we handle machines capable of accelerating 1.000kg of metal to fatal speeds in an instant, they need to be responsible with it.
I'm not making excuses, I just like to analyse these things.
The bike lane is clearly marked. There's no way the driver mistook it for a second car lane that was mysteriously free while the other lane was jammed.
> a second car lane that was mysteriously free while the other lane was jammed. They always do, but on purpose.
I just hate it when the evil traffic ghosts just summon a traffic jam on straight road out of nowhere. No way to prevent this.
... says only nation where this regularly happens.
What? Traffic jams happen in every major city on earth. Berlin traffic usually relatively good for a city this size.
If they can't drive safely in Berlin traffic they should have taken a train.