Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-13-13, 08:08 PM   #1
Lot's Knife
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Lot's Knife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Bikes:
Posts: 517
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
In Tucson, bicyclists' lives are cheap

Denied platinum status repeatedly by the League of American Bicyclists, Arizona's second-largest city still can't get it together.
Lot's Knife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-13, 08:33 PM   #2
Ky_Rider
Senior Member
 
Ky_Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Kentucky
Bikes: Trucker, Kona Mtb, and Fairdale SS
Posts: 159
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks for sharing. I was just telling my wife the other day that if you want to kill someone just run them over with a vehicle. Rarely does anyone serve time. Somehow it's the walker or cyclist's fault they got hit.
Ky_Rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-13, 08:57 PM   #3
turbo1889
Transportation Cyclist
 
turbo1889's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Montana U.S.A.
Bikes: Too many to list, some I built myself including the frame. I "do" ~ Human-Only-Pedal-Powered-Cycles, Human-Electric-Hybrid-Cycles, Human-IC-Hybrid-Cycles, and one Human-IC-Electric-3way-Hybrid-Cycle
Posts: 1,206
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Provided a prosecutor really wants to actually do something and isn't a accomplice after the fact him/her-self. In almost every state and under almost any set of laws in any half way civilized nation there are provisions for something that could be best defined as "willful gross criminal negligence in a position of responsibility over a potentially dangerous situation resulting in the death of innocent people" the same kind of statute that applies when the operator of a chemical plant knowingly and willfully ignores safety and it results in the plant going up in a blast that kills people or having a breach and people being killed by poison gas, etc . . .

Usually such statutes are applied in industrial settings, the captain that is drunk and runs his ship onto the rocks and passengers die, the chemical plant operator above, the contractor who builds a supermarket and deliberately and knowingly cuts corners and the roof caves in a week after it opens and people die, etc . . .

But a prosecutor that actually wants to make something that is worth something actually stick can use those same laws and legal precedents against drivers who are also guilty of killing other people by deliberate gross negligence in the operation of their dangerous machine. Very few are willing to actually do it though and are they themselves accomplices after the fact and are looking for ways to let fellow motorists off as easy as possible and by so doing are themselves guilty of felony obstruction of justice.
turbo1889 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-13, 09:11 PM   #4
B. Carfree
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Bikes:
Posts: 6,302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
Only dealing with deadly driving habits AFTER someone is maimed/killed is never going to make our streets safe. We need to use available technology to change motorists' habits BEFORE they kill/maim. Automated red light cameras have been around for decades, but aren't being used. In fact, they are being removed because of the hue and cry of incompetent motorists who have been cited by them. The same technology can be used at stop signs, but isn't. Automated speed detection vans are commonly used in Europe, but we don't employ them.

Until motorists are taught that scofflaw driving will have consequences they don't want to experience, then we will continue to have dangerous driving as the norm.
B. Carfree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-13, 11:31 PM   #5
turbo1889
Transportation Cyclist
 
turbo1889's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Montana U.S.A.
Bikes: Too many to list, some I built myself including the frame. I "do" ~ Human-Only-Pedal-Powered-Cycles, Human-Electric-Hybrid-Cycles, Human-IC-Hybrid-Cycles, and one Human-IC-Electric-3way-Hybrid-Cycle
Posts: 1,206
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
^ +1



One of the complaints about red light cameras which has even been made by some people on this board is that "they cause rear end accidents at stop lights". What a complete load of &(%&^@ @T%& &*$Y@ %&#U^%& @#%^^%&U# ^%&#&U %^UQWE 5@%&#& @%^%@^ @^%@%^ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

First of all they are NOT "just accidents" they are a case of reckless selfish disgusting fool at the controls of a multi-ton killing machine acting at the bare minimum with criminal negligence in the operation of such a dangerous machine. Secondly the camera does NOT "cause" such collisions nor does the driver of the car in front who actually stops for the red light "cause" such collisions. Rather it is a case of the following driver following too closely and at too great of speed and ASSuming the driver in front of him/her will "get out of the way" and "move it along" even when doing so is in direct violation of the rules of the road and directly putting the lives, health, and property of others in peril.

What really "causes" such rear end collisions is that reckless selfish disgusting fool at the controls of a multi-ton killing machine acting at the bare minimum with criminal negligence if not outright vicious intent in the operation of such a dangerous machine and ramming into things right in front of him/her.

Last edited by turbo1889; 10-13-13 at 11:35 PM.
turbo1889 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-13, 06:15 AM   #6
Jimi77
Used & Abused
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Bikes: GT Avalanche 2.0 + Burley D'lite
Posts: 314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by turbo1889 View Post
^ +1



One of the complaints about red light cameras which has even been made by some people on this board is that "they cause rear end accidents at stop lights". What a complete load of &(%&^@ @T%& &*$Y@ %&#U^%& @#%^^%&U# ^%&#&U %^UQWE 5@%&#& @%^%@^ @^%@%^ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

First of all they are NOT "just accidents" they are a case of reckless selfish disgusting fool at the controls of a multi-ton killing machine acting at the bare minimum with criminal negligence in the operation of such a dangerous machine. Secondly the camera does NOT "cause" such collisions nor does the driver of the car in front who actually stops for the red light "cause" such collisions. Rather it is a case of the following driver following too closely and at too great of speed and ASSuming the driver in front of him/her will "get out of the way" and "move it along" even when doing so is in direct violation of the rules of the road and directly putting the lives, health, and property of others in peril.

What really "causes" such rear end collisions is that reckless selfish disgusting fool at the controls of a multi-ton killing machine acting at the bare minimum with criminal negligence if not outright vicious intent in the operation of such a dangerous machine and ramming into things right in front of him/her.
I have to disagree with you. To paraphrase Starman, "Green means go, red means stop, yellow means go really fast."

People slam on their brakes to avoid the ticket, but the car behind them and the car 2 cars back fully intend to run the light and end up slamming into the car that stops because basically everybody thinks it's okay to run the light. I got slammed into pretty hard for stopping at a red and the guy in his "2 ton killing machine" behind me punched it thinking I would run the red (like everybody else) and launched my van about 15 feet from a dead stop. 20 years later and my neck & back still hurt and I lose sleep over it (the pain). Luckily, I had my seat belt on or I would have suffered significant chest injuries too. I sure would rather have a ticket than a lifetime of pain. Ironically, I still stop at red lights.
Jimi77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-13, 07:11 AM   #7
rydabent
Senior Member
 
rydabent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lincoln Ne
Bikes: RANS Stratus TerraTrike Cruiser
Posts: 5,762
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 162 Post(s)
ky rider +1

I have said for a long time that if you are so deranged you want to kill someone, buy them a bike and just run over them. Get a slap on the wrist, and then go about your pathetic life.
rydabent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-13, 07:50 AM   #8
turbo1889
Transportation Cyclist
 
turbo1889's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Montana U.S.A.
Bikes: Too many to list, some I built myself including the frame. I "do" ~ Human-Only-Pedal-Powered-Cycles, Human-Electric-Hybrid-Cycles, Human-IC-Hybrid-Cycles, and one Human-IC-Electric-3way-Hybrid-Cycle
Posts: 1,206
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
@ Jimi77


Actually you and I might not disagree all that much.

My point is that ----- red lights (or yellow) do NOT cause such a collision, you as the person in front who stopped for the red light do NOT cause such a collision, the presence of a red light camera and any encouragment it may have on you or another to go for the brakes rather then the gas do NOT cause such a collision, rather the idiot with the "starman mentality" as you paraphrase it are the ones who DO cause such collisions.

And everything else to the contrary is a "shift the blame game". And unless the idiot earth men and women have those magic balls which allow them to make it so everyone walks away from the fiery wreck like Starman had and are using them what they are doing is the deliberate knowing free will choice to engage in gross criminal negligence directly endangering the property, health, and very lives of others and they should be dealt with accordingly to the full extent that justice demands same as if they had committed such a reckless selfish act with any other dangerous machine.
turbo1889 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-13, 07:55 AM   #9
dynodonn 
Senior Member
 
dynodonn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Bikes:
Posts: 7,327
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi77 View Post
I have to disagree with you. To paraphrase Starman, "Green means go, red means stop, yellow means go really fast."

People slam on their brakes to avoid the ticket, but the car behind them and the car 2 cars back fully intend to run the light and end up slamming into the car that stops because basically everybody thinks it's okay to run the light. I got slammed into pretty hard for stopping at a red and the guy in his "2 ton killing machine" behind me punched it thinking I would run the red (like everybody else) and launched my van about 15 feet from a dead stop. 20 years later and my neck & back still hurt and I lose sleep over it (the pain). Luckily, I had my seat belt on or I would have suffered significant chest injuries too. I sure would rather have a ticket than a lifetime of pain. Ironically, I still stop at red lights.
Curious, because of one motorist's actions, why do you consider stopping at red lights, and saving others a similar fate as yours or possibly worse, as an irony? Put the blame on the other motorists negligent actions, not yours.
dynodonn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-13, 07:58 AM   #10
turbo1889
Transportation Cyclist
 
turbo1889's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Montana U.S.A.
Bikes: Too many to list, some I built myself including the frame. I "do" ~ Human-Only-Pedal-Powered-Cycles, Human-Electric-Hybrid-Cycles, Human-IC-Hybrid-Cycles, and one Human-IC-Electric-3way-Hybrid-Cycle
Posts: 1,206
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
It's the same argument that some cagers try to make that "if that cyclist hadn't been on the road then I wouldn't have hit him/her from behind and run them down in the lane ahead of me and therefore they are the problem and the reason why the collision occurred". That is not logical and is a "shift the blame" statement when the truth of the matter is actually more like "if that motorist had acted responsibly and acknowledged the fact that they were operating a dangerous potentially lethal machine around other innocent people and had operated that dangerous machine accordingly then the collision would not have occurred."

The "red light cameras cause rear end collisions" mentality is the exact same sort of twisted "shift the blame" anti-logic and needs to be recognized as what it is and I personally believe that anyone using such a defense for either infraction should be treated in the courts of justice as "belligerent unrepentant offenders" and take such twisted "shift the blame" anti-logic statements and defenses into consideration when it comes to the sentencing discretion of the court.
turbo1889 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-13, 08:23 AM   #11
HawkOwl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Bikes:
Posts: 2,635
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thank You for keeping up the high standards of analysis and discourse that Advocacy & Safety has come to be known for. I really needed that on this Monday morning.
HawkOwl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-13, 09:22 AM   #12
turbo1889
Transportation Cyclist
 
turbo1889's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Montana U.S.A.
Bikes: Too many to list, some I built myself including the frame. I "do" ~ Human-Only-Pedal-Powered-Cycles, Human-Electric-Hybrid-Cycles, Human-IC-Hybrid-Cycles, and one Human-IC-Electric-3way-Hybrid-Cycle
Posts: 1,206
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by HawkOwl View Post
Thank You for keeping up the high standards of analysis and discourse that Advocacy & Safety has come to be known for. I really needed that on this Monday morning.
Are you serious or are you being sarcastic? Anyone in particular your referring too?

I'm asking a couple of serious legitimate question hoping for an answer, either way on both. I just want to understand you correctly which ever way you meant that. (Voice inflection doesn't translate through in the printed word.)

Last edited by turbo1889; 10-14-13 at 09:27 AM.
turbo1889 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-13, 10:20 AM   #13
Matariki
Not quite there yet
 
Matariki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Monkey Bottom, NC
Bikes: A bunch of old steel bikes + an ICE trike
Posts: 1,001
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Good article. Criminal court only assures justice to the accused. Civil court is where victims (or their families) can get some satisfaction
Matariki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-13, 12:06 PM   #14
Jimi77
Used & Abused
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Bikes: GT Avalanche 2.0 + Burley D'lite
Posts: 314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynodonn View Post
Curious, because of one motorist's actions, why do you consider stopping at red lights, and saving others a similar fate as yours or possibly worse, as an irony? Put the blame on the other motorists negligent actions, not yours.
But I cannot control the actions of others and I can control my own actions. Had I run that red light, I certainly could have avoided 20 years of neck and back pain and "starman" still would have punched the gas.
Jimi77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-13, 12:10 PM   #15
Jimi77
Used & Abused
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Bikes: GT Avalanche 2.0 + Burley D'lite
Posts: 314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by turbo1889 View Post
It's the same argument that some cagers try to make that "if that cyclist hadn't been on the road then I wouldn't have hit him/her from behind and run them down in the lane ahead of me and therefore they are the problem and the reason why the collision occurred". That is not logical and is a "shift the blame" statement when the truth of the matter is actually more like "if that motorist had acted responsibly and acknowledged the fact that they were operating a dangerous potentially lethal machine around other innocent people and had operated that dangerous machine accordingly then the collision would not have occurred."

The "red light cameras cause rear end collisions" mentality is the exact same sort of twisted "shift the blame" anti-logic and needs to be recognized as what it is and I personally believe that anyone using such a defense for either infraction should be treated in the courts of justice as "belligerent unrepentant offenders" and take such twisted "shift the blame" anti-logic statements and defenses into consideration when it comes to the sentencing discretion of the court.
It's not twisted anti-logic, it's accepting the reality of the situation. People are going to text & drive, get high and drive, drive even though they have no idea how to drive, people are going to continue making lefts from the right hand lane, etc, etc, etc. If you know of some way to make people respect that they are behind the wheel of a large killing machine, then I'm all ears. As far as I can tell, many if not most drivers are blissfully unaware of how dangerous driving can be.
Jimi77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-13, 12:27 PM   #16
howsteepisit
Senior Member
 
howsteepisit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Eugene, OR
Bikes: Mecian
Posts: 3,756
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
Or maybe, calling them "killing machines" and saying drivers are blissfully unaware of how dangerous driving can be are hyperbolic exaggerations of the true to life risks involved in our daily existence?
howsteepisit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-13, 12:34 PM   #17
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 23,856
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by howsteepisit View Post
Or maybe, calling them "killing machines" and saying drivers are blissfully unaware of how dangerous driving can be are hyperbolic exaggerations of the true to life risks involved in our daily existence?
If only "advocates" would recognize just how counter productive it is to use hyperbolic exaggerations and emotional ranting as if it was rational discourse.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-13, 01:39 PM   #18
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,782
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 466 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi77 View Post
It's not twisted anti-logic, it's accepting the reality of the situation. People are going to text & drive, get high and drive, drive even though they have no idea how to drive, people are going to continue making lefts from the right hand lane, etc, etc, etc. If you know of some way to make people respect that they are behind the wheel of a large killing machine, then I'm all ears. As far as I can tell, many if not most drivers are blissfully unaware of how dangerous driving can be.
Mount a sharp object on the steering wheel of the vehicle... mount it in a manner so that it is pointed at the driver... they will eventually get the message.
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-13, 04:10 PM   #19
B. Carfree
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Bikes:
Posts: 6,302
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by howsteepisit View Post
Or maybe, calling them "killing machines" and saying drivers are blissfully unaware of how dangerous driving can be are hyperbolic exaggerations of the true to life risks involved in our daily existence?
In spite of the fact that a plurality of people won't ride bikes or walk because of their fear of the way motorists operate their vehicles, the odds of getting maimed by a motorist in an average lifetime are about 50%. Where's the hyperbole? Check out your local paper's web site for a week and count the number of road deaths and drunks-in-ditch stories.

Walking, cycling, driving and otherwise using the public roads should not be an activity that entails any risk. The fact that motorists kill and maim people on a regular basis rightfully has reasonable people alarmed and angry. But you go ahead and put your head back into that hole; I'm sure that's comforting for you.
B. Carfree is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-13, 04:26 PM   #20
howsteepisit
Senior Member
 
howsteepisit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Eugene, OR
Bikes: Mecian
Posts: 3,756
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 99 Post(s)
No way is the chance of being "maimed" by an auto accident is 50% in an average lifetime. I am 58, can count on 1 hand the number of people I know who have been maimed in auto accidents. More hyperbole I think.
howsteepisit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-13, 05:06 PM   #21
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 23,856
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec View Post
Mount a sharp object on the steering wheel of the vehicle... mount it in a manner so that it is pointed at the driver... they will eventually get the message.
See http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread...1#post16160095
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-13, 05:10 PM   #22
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 23,856
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by B. Carfree View Post
In spite of the fact that a plurality of people won't ride bikes or walk because of their fear of the way motorists operate their vehicles,
Is that the same reason why a plurality of people don't ride horses or don't ski?

Where did you find the info to support your rhetoric that the reason a plurality of people won't ride bikes or walk is because of their fear of the way motorists operate their vehicles?
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-13, 06:16 PM   #23
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,782
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 466 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike View Post
Is that the same reason why a plurality of people don't ride horses or don't ski?

Where did you find the info to support your rhetoric that the reason a plurality of people won't ride bikes or walk is because of their fear of the way motorists operate their vehicles?
Horses are not cheap to own... compared to say a bicycle. Skis require snow... so not the best thing for use on public roads for transportation. Does that answer your somewhat insipid question?
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-13, 06:22 PM   #24
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,782
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 466 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by howsteepisit View Post
No way is the chance of being "maimed" by an auto accident is 50% in an average lifetime. I am 58, can count on 1 hand the number of people I know who have been maimed in auto accidents. More hyperbole I think.
Wow, so the deaths of my uncles, the injuries to my dad, as well as the scars on my high school friend, and the scars on my face must just be statistical anomalies, right? And the 35,000 or so people killed each year are just some sort of odd occurrence, eh?

I will state that perhaps the term "maimed" is a bit of hyperbole...
genec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-13, 07:08 PM   #25
dynodonn 
Senior Member
 
dynodonn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Bikes:
Posts: 7,327
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi77 View Post
But I cannot control the actions of others and I can control my own actions. Had I run that red light, I certainly could have avoided 20 years of neck and back pain and "starman" still would have punched the gas.
Seems to me that you are still blaming yourself for someone else's negligence. Since you still stop at red lights, have been rear ended again?
dynodonn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:34 PM.