Rollfast

HawkOwl wasn't replying to you Turbo1889, they were making their comment to the OP, which was...

As for Genec's suggestion about using a sharp object in some manner to dissuade bad behavior, that is an irresponsible comment and they should be ashamed.

Turbo, you've been in this thread so much perhaps you've become lost in it.

For what it's worth this thread isn't following it's topic well and the topic is not really much more than a subjective rant. The fact that the OP bowed out after their opening suggests that HawkOwl's feeling has some merit.

I-Like-To-Bike

No! The referenced post questioned the poster's claim that the majority of people choose not to ride a bicycle because of their fear of motorists. Always, sometimes occasionally? Who knows since the poster presumably fabricated the statement out of whole cloth. You may feel the skepticism is "insipid", and that the reason why people choose anything other than a horse for transportation/exercise/recreation is the expense of a horse but that says more about your power of reasoning than anything else.

People don't ride bicycles when they feel that they have a better choice for the task, and they ride them at those times and places when they feel it is the best choice for the task, period. Just like riding a horse.

You and other cager bashers may wish to blame evil motorists for every decision other people make that runs counter to your choice, but that doesn't make it so.

njkayaker

"Plurality" does not mean "majority".

Many people are scared to bicycle ride in traffic (many people mention it). I have no idea whether they are scared to do so because they think drivers are bad.

I have no idea how many walkers are scared of traffic (I've never heard anybody mention it). I doubt this is a common reason people don't walk.

For various reasons (beyond simple "expense"), horses are very impractical (now) as a form of transportation.

Cross-country skis wouldn't ever be practical in the summer or when there's no snow. When it does snow, the roads are plowed too quickly. Other than that, they are cheap and easy to keep (unlike horses).

genec

I wish I could agree with you... but as an active and vocal cycling activist I ask and discuss with people who weekend ride and those who train but don't commute, and the majority of the responses I get from these cyclists about why they don't commute on a bike comes down to not wanting to deal with obnoxious drivers while on a bike.

Now granted their perspective is as a motorist, dealing with their perceptions of other motorists... but the reason that comes back time and time again is that "it is too dangerous out there."

On the other hand I know of a couple regular commuters that don't wear helmets... their feeling is "why, it's fine out here."

So it is all about how people perceive motor vehicle traffic... Not whether the dangers exist or not.

I-Like-To-Bike

You've changed the assertion/WAG of B. Carfree from "the fact that a plurality of people won't ride bikes or walk because of their fear of the way motorists operate their vehicles" to a completely different question of why some weekend recreational bicyclists in San Diego don't use a bicycle to commute.

I questioned the first statement of B. Carfree, not your totally different statement.

It just could be that a "plurality" of people decided that a bicycle, just like a horse or skis, is not the practical tool for the task at hand.

njkayaker

A "plurality" of people might not ride because it's impractical. That doesn't mean that some other "plurality" don't ride in traffic because they are scared to do so. Bicycles, as impractical as they might be, are much more practical than horses or skis.

"plurality" is a odd word to use anyway ("B. Carfree" isn't taking about votes).

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plurality

I-Like-To-Bike

Correct, plurality is not synonymous with majority.

In the context the word "plurality" is used by B. Carfree I can't guess what else he meant other than majority; no matter what he meant, (plurality, majority, whatever) it appears to be only a guess to fit his agenda.

stanman13

This is a woefully inaccurate statement. You cannot say that with any certainty at all. Had you run that red light, you may have T-boned a big truck or been T-boned by one. You might have hit a pedestrian or cyclist, killing them. Any number of things can be speculated with equal validity and certainty​ to your guess.

Jimi77

Wow.... No I cannot say with absolute certainty that something else equally at bad or even worse wouldn't have happened had I run the "orange" light. However, to say the certainty is equal to the actual pain and suffering I do experience is an absolutely ridiculous assertion.

squirtdad

Please provide the details support your 50% statement. Studies, statistics, etc

all activity entails risk....getting out bed is a risk, taking pushing hard when defecating is a risk if you have a heart condition (ask emt friends how many heart attack victims are found on the toliet)

the expectation the using a road should entail no risk is nice, utiopian but does not work in this universe of physics and chaos theory.

Discussion of this mode may be fine in this forum, but IMHO would be counter productive in any real advocay, say in front of a city council.


The bottom line is that the best advocacy is to ensure every cyclist votes and make known their concerns to politicians/government bodies, increase the number of cyclists so that that vote grows (commute if you can, help a neighbor fix up bike and ride, teach a co worker how to ride in the road...etc)

njkayaker

Don't guess. People being scared of riding in traffic is certainly a real thing (though one could argue about its frequency as a reason people avoid riding in traffic). Horses and skis being practical transportation alternatives isn't.

genec

Ah the usual "word fest..." Sigh... anyone care to define "is?"

stanman13

The ridiculous assertion is the claim that you "certainly" wouldn't have pain and suffering if you had run the red light. 100% pure grade A speculation without any foundation.

Jimi77

Okay, I 99.9999% wouldn't have the pain and suffering.

howsteepisit

Nicely said, Squirtdad

I-Like-To-Bike

Too bad that you think it only a "word fest" to be skeptical of the value of bicycling advocacy consisting of fabrication of "facts" and hyperbolic fear mongering rhetoric.

genec

Lot's Knife

Bowed out, my ass. By posting Tim Steller's column, I meant to highlight the lack of prosecutorial backbone in Pima County, which trickles down to the Police Department, which, tangentially, has been trained by experience not to refer cases to the DA even when provided license-plate numbers and physical and vehicle descriptions. I also object to this business of trying to funnel obvious cases of criminal negligence into civil courts.

Some posters here seem to have scores to settle, which is no business of mine, but to be clear, the death of this 7-year-old had nothing to do with a red light, but with a motorist who acted as if looking left was the only requirement for making a safe right turn.

turbo1889

Yup, a typical locked head left stare right turner. One of the hazards I've learned to look for while a pedestrian (not really a hazard while I'm cycling because I don't cycle against traffic or pass right turning traffic on the right).

Unfortunately, it would be the rare 7-year old that would realize that danger and be looking and watching for it. And it will be a sad world if we ever get to the point where they are expected too in order to stay alive for the mere selfish convenience of motorists.

genec

When I am out walking and come to an intersection with one of these folks... I gently knock on the window before I walk in front of their car.

turbo1889

Wow, genec, I don't have the balls to do that. I just generally wait until they turn before crossing the street.

Now if I know they see me and I've got a pedestrian dominant cross walk (a cross walk with no walk/don't-walk or other signal where peds. always have right of way in the cross-walk) then I'll step out right in front of them while looking them right in the eye full well intending to "make" them hit their brakes and respect me as a ped. with right of way in the crosswalk (while at the same time being ready to jump back out of the way at the last micro-second if they don't hit their brakes) and I will do the same thing with a signaled cross-walk where I've got the "walk" sign or I'm with the green light.

Sometimes this does result in some p*ssed off motorists who don't like me doing that too them one little bit. But I only do it when I know they see me and I can lock eyes with them. I've got the guts to do that and I regularly do so (although I have jumped a few times at the last moment when necessary). But I don't walk out in front of those who aren't looking and don't know I'm there and I don't have the guts to actually initiate by actually touching their car as rapping on their window would require.

I'll stand up for myself and I'll have a face off when necessary but I don't like to initiate the issue with a physical move like that, which is what I would consider rapping on their window like that to be.



By no means saying your wrong to do so, in fact I admire you for having the balls to do that, I don't. When I know I'm in the right I've got the guts to keep right on doing what I'm doing even though it ticks other people off right to their face. But when it comes to an actual confrontation not just going about my own business even though it ticks other people off whether, verbal only, just bare knuckles, are a serious lethal weapon situation I much prefer counter-punches and do not like to initiate.

genec

Helps if you have a big dog with you.

howsteepisit

IT seems like the linked article is more that all lives lost in non-felony auto incidents are little punished. It's not about the bike. I know that as a pedestrian I have gotten much more aggressive in exerting my right of way, always trying to be on the lookout to dive or dodge out of the way if necessary. But now I take more the stare them down and step in front to force cars to stop, but Lord, those right turners are bad. I thin the right turn on red laws should be repealed since the "after a stop and when safe part is now an afterthought at best,

Rollfast

They give the Nobel to the wrong cats

Rollfast

I think you should just wait your turn and let them go. You can always read the license plate and call somebody if they're really bad but as I always say, 200 lbs. vs 3500 equals Smith and Wesson. (Or I would but I just made that up).

Even if they are supposed to stop and don't there's no sense at all physically confronting a car. I call dispatch and tell them to check it out if it's hairy-there's a really nice fine for not yielding and they sweep for that regularly anyway. They also don't like jaywalkers on divided streets (or any others)-we had some tourists die on one such street before they divided it as part of the new interchange over ten years ago.