New data released by the NYPD shows over 6,000 criminal summonses issued to cyclists in the second quarter of 2025. That number increased tenfold compared to the first quarter. That number is also greater than the total number of criminal summonses issued to cyclists in the past seven years.
In Japan the fault for accidents is always assumed to be the larger vehicle. If a truck hits a car it’s on the onus of the truck driver to prove he wasn’t doing anything wrong, and if a car hits a cyclist, the car driver has to prove their innocence etc.
I think to most Americans that seems appalling (what if the stupid cyclist was doing something reckless?! Etc.), but it definitely makes people in Japan drive much safer in areas where there are potential cyclists, and thus makes it safer to cycle places easily.
I agree with this mentality, but it goes both ways. If a cyclist rode with consideration of the fact that they will lose every battle with a motor vehicle of any size they would also ride more cautiously. There are tons of bad drivers, and they are driving both motor vehicles and bicycles.
America is run by car lobbyist. They’re trying to get rid of kei cars and because the kei trucks are taking sales away from the giant American trucks with the same bed size. Trains and street cars were killed by GM to make room for their cars.
It’s the same in the Netherlands. The most vulnerable traffic participant is always protected. Bicycle gets hit by a car? Cars fault. Pedestrian gets hit by a bicycle? Cyclists fault. And so on.
I lived in a town with a huge seeing impaired population and it did take a little getting used to, but you adapt to being more aware of your surroundings pretty quickly. I didn’t ever actually collide with any person, but I’ve bumped into a couple of canes when the angle was such that I couldn’t tell they were coming towards me. I did feel like a huge dick though.
The cane is there to detect obstacles. They are used to it hitting things, it’s part of their life.
You don’t have to feel bad about it even though it is something you should try to avoid. It’s hard to see that cane when it is poking out in front of the person all the way at the ground if you turn around or things like that.
If I had to guess you both apologized when it happened, and both of you should be able to walk away satisfied after a random friendly interaction like that.
I’ve been the car driver in a bike versus car crash and I’m glad that wasn’t the law where it happened. It was 100% the cyclist’s fault; he ran a red light on a fairly fast road and was obscured by a box truck until he was in my lane.
I do think car drivers should be held to a higher standard because cars are more dangerous, but automatic fault based on vehicle size takes it a bit too far.
But they’re not claiming the car driver is always at fault, only the presumption of fault. Clearly demonstrating the other person ran a red light has a good chance of changing the judgement
The comment about Japan said there’s a presumption. The comment about the Netherlands suggests it’s always the car driver’s fault (I think this may be technically incorrect).
It is complicated. It is not technically always, but in practice is may very well be. As this page (in Dutch) notes that, unless the driver can show that ‘overmacht’ applies (they couldn’t have performed any action that would have avoided or reduced bodily harm), they are (at least in part) responsible for damages. For example, not engaging the brakes as soon as it is clear that you would hit them, would still result in them being (partially) liable for costs, even if the cyclist made an error themselves (crossing a red light).
Because the burden of proof is on the driver, it may be hard to prove that this is the case, resulting in their insurance having to pay up even if they did not do anything wrong.
The general traffic rule is that unless indicated otherwise, roads are primarily for pedestrians and cyclists, so you’re the one borrowing their roads, not the other way around.
One of the things you’re taught early on in driving school in Japan is to “close the gap” and pull to the side that you’re turning into in order to prevent bicycles and mopeds from fitting between the sidewalk and your car and tboning you if you pull into a right or left turn.
If you pull into a left turn (left handed driving so similar to a US right turn) without checking that a cyclist is coming up behind you on your left side and they slam into your car you are 100% at fault.
[Edit]
The thing you gotta know about japanese roads and the law is that all roads unless explicitly marked otherwise are primarily for pedestrians and cyclists. As a car driver you are borrowing their roads. The law explicitly states that you are not allowed, while operating a motor vehicle, under any circumstances to impede the progress of pedestrians or cyclists.
The only time the law says otherwise is on highways and roads marked exclusively for motor vehicles.
Old lady walks in the middle of a four-lane street, shutting down traffic? Yea man too bad, you gotta wait, the most the police will do is set up a road barrier to help her cross easier and ask her nicely to use the pedestrian crosswalk.
With no bike lane the cyclist should be acting as a vehicle and not cutting off a turning lane at an intersection, although that is common behavior in my experience.
They’re saying it’s on the SUV driver to prove they didn’t do illegal things that resulted in the accident, assuming normal police requests don’t do it first (security camera footage of the intersection) because nobody knows for sure who ran a red light except the people involved, unless there’s proof.
Not “someone said the SUV ran a red light and everyone believed them instantly without proof and the SUV was found at fault”
They said assumed, which makes me think it’s a general predisposition, but open to additional evidence. We assume a car that rear-ends another is at fault, but that doesn’t make that if car A pushes car B into car C, the operator of car B is necessarily liable for car C’s damages. It’s just the going theory before additional evidence comes into play.
Not sure where you heard this, at most you need to register your bike with the police so they know who to fine if you leave it overnight somewhere it’s not supposed to be
So first the law isn’t real, I show that the law is real and then the claim is it is unenforced so next when I state that over 60% of residents in prefectures have liability insurance how are you going to move the goal posts next
Are you talking about the TS-mark? You get it when your bike is registered and inspected. If your bike is registered and inspected the inspection fee covers the TS-Mark, you don’t need anything else.
I don’t know who sold you that crap but it sounds like you got scammed.
TS-mark is just one of the types of insurance you can get, you can also get other types of insurances without the inspection. The TS-mark still requires an annual fee to cover the insurance
In Japan the fault for accidents is always assumed to be the larger vehicle. If a truck hits a car it’s on the onus of the truck driver to prove he wasn’t doing anything wrong, and if a car hits a cyclist, the car driver has to prove their innocence etc.
I think to most Americans that seems appalling (what if the stupid cyclist was doing something reckless?! Etc.), but it definitely makes people in Japan drive much safer in areas where there are potential cyclists, and thus makes it safer to cycle places easily.
In America the fault for accidents is always assumed to be the poorer person. It’s on them to spend exorbitant legal fees to prove their innocence.
I agree with this mentality, but it goes both ways. If a cyclist rode with consideration of the fact that they will lose every battle with a motor vehicle of any size they would also ride more cautiously. There are tons of bad drivers, and they are driving both motor vehicles and bicycles.
America is run by car lobbyist. They’re trying to get rid of kei cars and because the kei trucks are taking sales away from the giant American trucks with the same bed size. Trains and street cars were killed by GM to make room for their cars.
It’s the same in the Netherlands. The most vulnerable traffic participant is always protected. Bicycle gets hit by a car? Cars fault. Pedestrian gets hit by a bicycle? Cyclists fault. And so on.
Blind pedestrian gets hit by sighted pedestrian? Sighted pedestrian’s fault and also a total dick move.
I lived in a town with a huge seeing impaired population and it did take a little getting used to, but you adapt to being more aware of your surroundings pretty quickly. I didn’t ever actually collide with any person, but I’ve bumped into a couple of canes when the angle was such that I couldn’t tell they were coming towards me. I did feel like a huge dick though.
The cane is there to detect obstacles. They are used to it hitting things, it’s part of their life.
You don’t have to feel bad about it even though it is something you should try to avoid. It’s hard to see that cane when it is poking out in front of the person all the way at the ground if you turn around or things like that.
If I had to guess you both apologized when it happened, and both of you should be able to walk away satisfied after a random friendly interaction like that.
Dat is wel een serieuze oversimplificatie. Ik denk niet dat een vrachtwagen meer of minder aansprakelijk is in een ongeval.
I’ve been the car driver in a bike versus car crash and I’m glad that wasn’t the law where it happened. It was 100% the cyclist’s fault; he ran a red light on a fairly fast road and was obscured by a box truck until he was in my lane.
I do think car drivers should be held to a higher standard because cars are more dangerous, but automatic fault based on vehicle size takes it a bit too far.
But they’re not claiming the car driver is always at fault, only the presumption of fault. Clearly demonstrating the other person ran a red light has a good chance of changing the judgement
The comment about Japan said there’s a presumption. The comment about the Netherlands suggests it’s always the car driver’s fault (I think this may be technically incorrect).
It is complicated. It is not technically always, but in practice is may very well be. As this page (in Dutch) notes that, unless the driver can show that ‘overmacht’ applies (they couldn’t have performed any action that would have avoided or reduced bodily harm), they are (at least in part) responsible for damages. For example, not engaging the brakes as soon as it is clear that you would hit them, would still result in them being (partially) liable for costs, even if the cyclist made an error themselves (crossing a red light).
Because the burden of proof is on the driver, it may be hard to prove that this is the case, resulting in their insurance having to pay up even if they did not do anything wrong.
Thanks for the clarification. That’s probably reasonable, especially if it only determines whose insurance has to pay, not some additional penalty.
It feels a lot safer to be a pedestrian in Japan. I never saw a driver take precedence for themselves.
The general traffic rule is that unless indicated otherwise, roads are primarily for pedestrians and cyclists, so you’re the one borrowing their roads, not the other way around.
Some of those citations are cyclists on sidewalks endangering pedestrians…
Others is cyclists running red lights.
So, cyclists hitting a pedestrian, I feel like we’d agree who’s at fault.
But say a cyclists runs a red light and tbones a SUV, you’re saying the SUV is at fault?
Actually, yea, kinda.
One of the things you’re taught early on in driving school in Japan is to “close the gap” and pull to the side that you’re turning into in order to prevent bicycles and mopeds from fitting between the sidewalk and your car and tboning you if you pull into a right or left turn.
If you pull into a left turn (left handed driving so similar to a US right turn) without checking that a cyclist is coming up behind you on your left side and they slam into your car you are 100% at fault.
[Edit]
The thing you gotta know about japanese roads and the law is that all roads unless explicitly marked otherwise are primarily for pedestrians and cyclists. As a car driver you are borrowing their roads. The law explicitly states that you are not allowed, while operating a motor vehicle, under any circumstances to impede the progress of pedestrians or cyclists.
The only time the law says otherwise is on highways and roads marked exclusively for motor vehicles.
Old lady walks in the middle of a four-lane street, shutting down traffic? Yea man too bad, you gotta wait, the most the police will do is set up a road barrier to help her cross easier and ask her nicely to use the pedestrian crosswalk.
Assuming there’s a bike lane.
Which I’m assuming is more common in Japan.
With no bike lane the cyclist should be acting as a vehicle and not cutting off a turning lane at an intersection, although that is common behavior in my experience.
There are very few bike lanes in Japan, big reason is the edit I made a minute ago.
They’re saying it’s on the SUV driver to prove they didn’t do illegal things that resulted in the accident, assuming normal police requests don’t do it first (security camera footage of the intersection) because nobody knows for sure who ran a red light except the people involved, unless there’s proof.
Not “someone said the SUV ran a red light and everyone believed them instantly without proof and the SUV was found at fault”
They said assumed, which makes me think it’s a general predisposition, but open to additional evidence. We assume a car that rear-ends another is at fault, but that doesn’t make that if car A pushes car B into car C, the operator of car B is necessarily liable for car C’s damages. It’s just the going theory before additional evidence comes into play.
Where do you see that? I see if both vehicles are moving both are at fault even if one runs a stop sign.
Cyclists also have a lot more rules and are required to have liability insurance in Japan
No, they’re not.
Not sure where you heard this, at most you need to register your bike with the police so they know who to fine if you leave it overnight somewhere it’s not supposed to be
The US doesn’t need to do that because a left bike will be stolen before it’s been there long enough to bother anyone.
I lived in Japan for a few months
“All Bicycle Riders Must Enroll in Bicycle Liability Insurance in Tokyo (and some other prefectures in Japan)
The Tokyo Metropolitan Government requires all bicycle riders (including children) to purchase Bicycle Liability Insurance in Tokyo.”
https://www.japanlivingguide.com/expatinfo/transportation/cycling-rules/
That law is unenforced.
So first the law isn’t real, I show that the law is real and then the claim is it is unenforced so next when I state that over 60% of residents in prefectures have liability insurance how are you going to move the goal posts next
No, that’s covered by the “TS Mark” that you get when you buy and register the bike.
It’s an annual insurance, it’s ¥2-5000 a year which is around $20.
Are you talking about the TS-mark? You get it when your bike is registered and inspected. If your bike is registered and inspected the inspection fee covers the TS-Mark, you don’t need anything else.
I don’t know who sold you that crap but it sounds like you got scammed.
TS-mark is just one of the types of insurance you can get, you can also get other types of insurances without the inspection. The TS-mark still requires an annual fee to cover the insurance
You mean to cover the inspection fee? The inspection sticker doesn’t have an annual fee.
You don’t need anything else other than the inspection sticker.