Nearly Fatal Bicycle-Automobile Accident in Portland
 

Driver and Cyclist Both DUI


Drunk driver.

Drunk cyclist, at night, cyclist wearing dark clothing, no lights, and no helmet.

Intersection accident, cyclist was on a street with a stop sign; no stop sign for the car.

Darwin awards time.

Portland? I'm shocked! :rolleyes:

Maybe you can somehow twist the FACTS to make it seem like bike lanes are at fault...

"According to police, Slawta was riding her bike west on northeast Skidmore Street shortly after midnight when she failed to stop at a stop sign at the intersection with northeast 15th Avenue. Her bike then collided with the side of Grover's Ford Ranger pickup."

She t-boned the dude's truck after running a stop sign. Is that an automatic "at fault" credit? I hope she recovers and all, but seriously... tanked, no lights, no brain bucket, ran a stop sign. I hope she gets some smarts out of all this mess.

Some typical Portland idiot cyclists are already calling for "no more waste of police resources on bicyclists running stop signs." They clearly haven't learned a thing; I wonder if she will....

sort of amusing it happened on the corner of skidmore st. :roflmao:
No say about charging cyclist with dui:rolleyes:

She ran into him! She should be charged for running stop sign & DUI!

Come on HH, I've got my popcorn and I'm waiting...

Last I heard, the driver was arrested on DUII charges, and the cyclist will be charged for the same thing as well. Don't worry, this one is pretty obvious. Two drunks don't make a sober ;).

Well, since two of you insist...
How's that?

yada yada

Drunks are typically careless. In any state... of the union or of the mind.

"Cloud of carelessness"... As Dave Barry would say: That would make an excellent name for a rock band. :p

But one is more likely to be willing to drink and bike when he underestimates his or her need to be vigilant while cycling. The "cloud of carelessness" that infects the minds of Portland cyclists makes them more likely to make this kind of error.

Lest you think I'm kidding... the other day someone asked me what I thought my biggest threat was while cycling. Without hesitation, I said me. How many Portland cyclists think of themselves as their biggest threat?

All right, jokes aside, you'll have to back your previous statement up. No third order logic this time. No re-assessment of half understood data. Direct observation.

Otherwise I get to dismiss the statement altogether, as all it is is hot air and paper.

My approach to cycling is different than yours. I am not my biggest threat. However, I am my best defense. FWIW, nothing about accepting personal responsibility contradicts bicycle facilities. You are the only one here who believes that the only alternative to your brand of Vehicular Cycling is blind reliance on bike lanes. You have internalized the either-or fallacy you propogate to the point where you are as bad or worse than those who self describe themselves as "paint 'n path" advocates.

Totally backwards, as usual. The Portland cyclists who run red lights and ride drunk don't do it because they feel safe as a result of bike lanes, they do it because of a peer culture in which recklessness is highly valued.

Well of course, haven't you heard this is the only place people drink and drive/ride. The rest of the country is completely safe. :rolleyes:

Wow and all this time I thought they did it because they were stupid.

I made several statements. Which statement do you want me to back up?

You're the one committing the either-or fallacy, Brian, as you are the one who sees me as one who believes that the " only alternative to [my] brand of Vehicular Cycling is blind reliance on bike lanes". I sure don't believe that, by the way. What have I written that makes you think I do?

Same difference. ;)

I agree with this. As my protection from danger gets less i.e. motorcycle, riding, walking my attention level increases. I don't see that as a threat I see it as you have to be way more alert to the dangers then the cagers are.

How about start with the one above. Specifically, the "cloud of carelessness."

Show me what'cha got! Remember, no logical sequence this time. Only direct observation will do. Keep in mind that there are thousands of transportational cyclists in Portland every day. I saw numbers up in the 10,000s during one presentation. I also saw data which showed that the number of cyclists quintupled over the last 13 years, with accident rates staying flat and fatalities in the single digits (see here from BikePortland.org, the stats are from the Portland Department of Transportation, not any advocacy group). You'll have to bring some first hand data to the table to counter these statistics.

As far as the either-or thing... like I've said, you've internalized it. Otherwise, you'd get off your soap box every once in a while. You think you are right. You have the answer. Every other answer leads to death. Your answer leads to life. Etc.

A post to this point spotted in the Bikeportland forums:

Indeed.

Yes, that mentality is quite different from mine.

Thinking of oneself as one's best defense is consistent with an approach that sees external hazards against which one must defend himself. It's, well, defensive thinking. And consistent with this, should you fail to defend yourself appropriately, is victimization thinking. While you failed to defend yourself, or failed to properly prepare for a given situation, it's still not your fault that some guy ran the red light, or there was ice in the road, or there was glass in the road, or whatever.

My approach involves seeing myself as part of the environment - I'm not defending myself, I'm integrating myself with it in a manner that serves me. If it doesn't serve me, if I get hit by a red light runner or slip on some ice, then I have failed to integrate myself with the environment in an appropriate manner.

This?
You want direct observation supporting that? You've got to be kidding.

I'm sorry, I'm unable to comply. LOL.

So then...

Why the comment? Just talking out your ass?

We know. :evillaughsmiley: