Advocacy & Safety - Forum etiquette - cyclist death threads

In threads in this safety forum with information about cyclist deaths, is it appropriate or inappropriate/disrespectful to speculate about what may or may not have caused the tragedy, assume some of those speculated causes to be true, and to discuss potential ways for other cyclists to avoid a similar fate?

Honestly? To me it ranks right up there with folks watching the "car hits biker video"
It’s morbid and disrespectful, but sometimes it’s necessary.

The key here if you have to do it is a little tact.
You have to be appropriately inappropriate, and respectfully disrespectful.;)

Other.

Discussion is one thing, but using someone's death as a platform for furthering your agenda is sick and wrong.

It's not morbid or disrespectful to speculate how a fatal car/bicycle accident occurred, it's just pointless and stupid. Most of these speculation threads degenerate into "If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a bicycle", or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. What's the point of arguing anything if we don't have hard facts about what happened ?

An inference is one thing, I can infer that it rained recently if I walk outside and see everything wet, I didn't actually see the rain coming down, but it's not a leap of faith to infer that because it's wet outside, it just rained. But speculating about speed down to last mile per hour , lane location within feet etc. is just foolish.

When there are clear facts about how the accident occurred,who was driving where in the street, what kind of traffic control devices there were, then there are very fruitful and helpful discussions here.

It's just a childish to get riled up after speculating about something and then insulting and criticizing anybody who disagrees with assumption!

Thank you.

Other.

Discussion is one thing, but using someone's death as a platform for furthering your agenda is sick and wrong.
It is sick and wrong to use someone's death as a platform to further one's agenda regardless of what the agenda is?

Is it sick and wrong to use a discussion about terrorist victims as a platform for furthering one's agenda to end terrorism?

Is it sick and wrong to use a discussion about murder victims as a platform for furthering one's agenda against murder?

Is it sick and wrong to use a discussion about a drunk driver victim as a platform for furthering one's agenda against drunk driving and, say, promoting MADD?

Is it sick and wrong to use a discussion about a SCUBA diver's death as a platform for furthering one's agenda to reduce the incidence of SCUBA diving accidental deaths?

Is it sick and wrong to use a discussion about a cyclist's death as a platform for furthering one's agenda to reduce the incidence of cyclist car-bike collision deaths?

Other... it is tasteless and wrong to go into endless arguments about minutia of riding styles without acknowledging the loss of a fellow rider.

Be tactful and respectful... and keep speculation to a minimum.

It's not morbid or disrespectful to speculate how a fatal car/bicycle accident occurred, it's just pointless and stupid.
...
But speculating about speed down to last mile per hour , lane location within feet etc. is just foolish.
I think you're confusing the part of the discussions that are speculating about what happened in a particular crash with the part of the discussions that might be discussing a hypothetical situation loosely based on the limited information available, and speculation.

For the sake of discussing any hypothetical, sometimes it's helpful to use specific facts and numbers. For those specifics to be useful, they just have to be consistent and realistic within a given hypothetical paradigm (some of the parameters of which may or may not have been inspired by an actual event); they do not have to reflect what actually happened in reality in every detail, in order to be useful.

In the discussions I've been involved in, it seemed pretty obvious when we were talking about what actually happened, when we were speculating about what might have happened, and when we were discussing hypothetical situations loosely based on our limited understanding of what happened. But I suppose we could try to make those distinctions more clear, if you think that would help.

In threads in this safety forum with information about cyclist deaths, is it appropriate or inappropriate/disrespectful to speculate about what may or may not have caused the tragedy, assume some of those speculated causes to be true, and to discuss potential ways for other cyclists to avoid a similar fate?

Personally, I wonder if posting every single instance of a rider getting killed in the US here serves a useful purpose for the members of the forum. Especially since such threads end up being about speculating what happened and what someone else, usually the government, should do about it.

Perhaps we need a break from starting these threads in the first place, a moratorium if you like.

Personally, I wonder if posting every single instance of a rider getting killed in the US here serves a useful purpose for the members of the forum. Especially since such threads end up being about speculating what happened and what someone else, usually the government, should do about it.

I find them useful. For one thing, it reminds/encourages us to be vigilant. Two, in some of the scenarios, there are things the cyclist could have done to reduce (though rarely eliminate) the likelihood of the collision. There is something to be learned in such scenarios. If you find there is nothing to be learned from others' misfortunes, I suggest you not read such threads, and just keep hoping that nothing bad happens to you on the road. As for me, I read every one of these accident threads, and my cycling habits have changed as a result, and I believe I am a safer cyclist (though I would concede that road cycling is inherently dangerous).

And I think it goes without saying that as a cyclist, I am always saddened by reports of yet another cycling fatality.

While it is true that some of these threads degenerate into useless drivel, that's the price we pay for having an open forum.

HH, keep up the good work - some of us are listening and learning.

Other.

Discussion is one thing, but using someone's death as a platform for furthering your agenda is sick and wrong.


yup.

I just think it's ghoulish and wrong.

rando - SingingSabre has so far ignored my question about whether the agenda matters. Perhaps you will answer it? Post #6.

"Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it."

Okay, a little dramatic, but if we could all learn something from someone's death, i.e. what not to do, more power to us. I'm sure we all learned that it is not good to swim up behind a stingray.

If somebody starts the thread as "fodder" for lane positioning arguments and then people argue about lane positioning that's honest even if it's disrepectful to the dead.

But if somebody starts the thread as an example of how the police responded to an accident situation and then somebody hijacks the topic so it becomes an argument about lane positioning then that is wrong and disrespectful.

It's not the topics themselves that are disrepectful but how they get twisted to some people's egoistic, narcissistic, mental masturb8tion that is disrespecful.

Diane - that's a fair point.

Very well stated. I agree 100%. That is the exact reason the thread about the 12 year old boy got shut down. Guys, this is NOT your "personal" forum--live and learn, and then move on.

other.

they tend to be posted to be argumentative or to provoke rather than instructional and are therefore highly disrespectful to the victim and his/her survivors.

they tend to degenerate into typical internet diatribes and are therefore highly disrespectful to the victim and his/her survivors.

they lack sufficient information to make any real conclusions other than amateurish speculation. No professional accident investigation would base any conclusion on newspaper articles, on-line discussions and secondhand reports and are therefore highly disrespectful to the victim and his/her survivors.

and finally, why in the world do you post a poll only to argue with each and every one of us that disagrees with your opinion? Did you start this post to find out how people stand on the issue or to jam your point of view down everyone's throat? Is it that problematic that many of us hold ourselves to different standard with this regard? I made a brief response to Brian Ratliff's well written post in the other thread and have voiced my opinion here. Other than that I'll stay away from that thread and leave it to those who have a more prurient interest in such subjects. Knock yourself out- I'm sure you'll learn a lot about how to bike safely from your discussions or at least will convince yourself that's what you're doing.

I have no objection to anyone posting anything. I am perfectly capable of doing my own filtering and interpreting, and I do believe there is much to be learned from mistakes and tragedies and our discussions thereof. It also does not hurt to be reminded periodically of our own fragile mortality.

here's what I find EXTREMELY disturbing with the original poster's SLANT on bicycle deaths.....his insistence that, if a cyclist is anywhere except smack dab in the center of the lane, it is not the driver's responsibility to notice or avoid the bicyclist.

this is disrespectful speculation because it brings personal bias into the speculation. I feel his insistance on blaming the bikers and not the drivers in almost 100 percent of his speculations is what turns my stomach the most.

hed's lack of respect for the family and friends surviving is extremely tasteless.... it is NOT the bicyclists fault when a driver leaves a travel lane and hits them from behind.. the fault is NOT with the bicyclists in this situation.

when a biker is right hooked by a car turning across the bike's path, it is NOT the fault of the biker.

speculation, 'analysis' in this manner is disgusting.

Bek - I think you are confusing being at fault in a collision and being able to prevent a collision.

Serge blames every cyclist who didn't prevent a collision using his brand of DLP. He believes they are all deserving of whatever tragedy befell them. It's not unlike people who think you are going to Hell because you didn't accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.

sorry, 2x post. mods, can you delete pls?

here's what I find EXTREMELY disturbing with the original poster's SLANT on bicycle deaths.....his insistence that, if a cyclist is anywhere except smack dab in the center of the lane, it is not the driver's responsibility to notice or avoid the bicyclist.

this is disrespectful speculation because it brings personal bias into the speculation. I feel his insistance on blaming the bikers and not the drivers in almost 100 percent of his speculations is what turns my stomach the most.

hed's lack of respect for the family and friends surviving is extremely tasteless.... it is NOT the bicyclists fault when a driver leaves a travel lane and hits them from behind.. the fault is NOT with the bicyclists in this situation.

when a biker is right hooked by a car turning across the bike's path, it is NOT the fault of the biker.

speculation, 'analysis' in this manner is disgusting.
I don't think you could have misinterpreted his intent anymore than you have. No one is suggesting that it was the cyclist's fault. It was clearly the driver's fault - but that doesn't do the victim or his family much good, does it?

no, serpico, hh blames cyclists for drivers right/left hooking them ALL THE TIME IN HERE, and he also places no responsibility on the drivers if a bicyclist is ANYWHERE BUT his omnipresent center-of-the-lane 'default analysis' he overlays his speculation on.

Serpico and Chephy, thank you for paying attention.

Bek and Diane, I hope you pay attention better while riding your bikes in traffic than what you demonstrate reading my posts.

hed, you are damnably apologist for the drivers in A&S and always conclude the bicyclist wasn't far enough in the lane for your liking.

you link to some pseudo-psycho babble article at a weblink site geared for defense attorneys to provide defense angles in cases of negligence.
hed, you usually speculatively and obtusely override any other's posters thoughts on the accident/death by relentless insistance it was the fault of the bicyclist not riding powerswerve.

you recently tried to absolve a driver completely for a bicyclist they hit and killed in a bike lane in Portland. you made preposterous claims that a driver doesn't ordinarily watch for things in the periphery and franky, shouldn't have to.


your apologist speculation for drivers causing the deaths of bicyclists in here, and placing blame wrongfully on a bicyclist for a failure of lane position in almost every accident accounted in A&S is particularily reprehensible and i am amazed you can live with yourself. i find this element of the accident 'specualtion' really foul.

How do you live with yourself, anyway? Your steadfast defense for drivers against any and every accident because of some incorrect lane position should sicken any bicyclist that rides in traffic.

I really do wonder about you, hellmet head.....

Bek and Diane, I hope you pay attention better while riding your bikes in traffic than what you demonstrate reading my posts.


you're a disrespectful jackadze as well. Diane has you on ignore, and I know your one-trick-pony show all too well to read your drivel.

I am amazed amoralistic depravity could sink so low as to allow a person that claims to be a bicyclist defend drivers that kill cyclists because 'well shucks, drivers don't have to look for people in the edges of the roadways....it's not where there attention is usually focused.'

makes me want to vomit. i think more than a few families of bicycling fatalities are appalled at heads' "Forum ettiquette."

It is sick and wrong to use someone's death as a platform to further one's agenda regardless of what the agenda is?

Is it sick and wrong to use a discussion about terrorist victims as a platform for furthering one's agenda to end terrorism?

Is it sick and wrong to use a discussion about murder victims as a platform for furthering one's agenda against murder?

Is it sick and wrong to use a discussion about a drunk driver victim as a platform for furthering one's agenda against drunk driving and, say, promoting MADD?

Is it sick and wrong to use a discussion about a SCUBA diver's death as a platform for furthering one's agenda to reduce the incidence of SCUBA diving accidental deaths?

Is it sick and wrong to use a discussion about a cyclist's death as a platform for furthering one's agenda to reduce the incidence of cyclist car-bike collision deaths?


In a word... YES.

What I find amusing about this thread is that the same people attacking HH for wanting to analyze crashes and suggest what might help are the same ones that attack such actions with enough vigor that it makes me wonder what their agenda is. HH is right when he says that the only thing we as cyclists can do in traffic is to modify what we do in order to reduce our risk. I am not saying that I agree with everything he writes and I am not in any way advocating some sort of "brand" as those who are anti HH say he is doing, but he is correct in that basic assumption. People who tell him and others who wish to use a tragic story that someone posted here to learn from it and maybe reduce the chances of it happening again to shut up are the ones with the disrespectful and dangerous agenda.

My biggest concern with the morbid posting of people getting hurt or killed is a simple one: why even bother? I have repeatedly wondered what it has to do with advocacy. I repeatedly have to wonder what it has to do with safety. If we are not allowed to discuss the why of a crash and what can be done to prevent it even if we do not agree with all the opinions expressed and even if the inevitable conclusion is that in some cases the cyclist who died is at fault then what is the point? How ghoulish is the person that attempts to shut down such a discussion? Do they want the situation to be repeated? I have to wonder at times.

The ONLY way any good can come from these posts is to discuss them and try and learn from them. If we had some sub forum where we could express sympathy and the family be notified that at least a part of the world's cycling community has noticed their tragedy and they be tactfully notified (by board admin only and after the trolls posts are removed since they do not need to see at that time anything other than sincere posts) then that might help this dilema.

I am amazed anyone's amoralistic depravity could sink so low as to allow a person that claims to be a bicyclist defend drivers that kill cyclists using the argument 'well shucks, drivers don't have to look for people in the edges of the roadways....it's not where there attention is usually focused.'

I only posted my thread as an example of how the police responded. People always say they don't care, they don't even bother to investigate. I just wanted to show that they did in fact bother to investigate -- and heck maybe for once we'd know what actually happened. I tried to veer the topic back to that point but it just didn't work. My thread got hijacked and then it got closed.

There have been several accidents resulting in death to a bicyclist around my area this year but I have not posted about them. I thought that a 12 year old kid would be beyond the reproachful heavy hand of helmet head and maybe the thread would stick to the topic, but I was very wrong. He was more vitriolic than ever about that poor kid.

I voted other. I did so mainly because most of the stories posted about a cyclist getting injured or killed only provide us with an incomplete picture. Discussion about specifics of lane positioning, for instance, is often purely speculative because the media outlets that report these stories are not interested in any comment about the safety of cycling but merely in reporting the bare bones of events to sell newspapers. For example, my local fishwrap reported that last night a cyclist was beaten and his bike stolen by some guys in a truck but there was no elaboration on what was the relationship between the victim and the attackers. Was it a traffic beef that got out of control? Was it a case that victim owed money to the attackers? Or was the bike stolen and the attackers taking the law into their own hands to recover stolen property? We simply don't know.

In principle, however, I have no quarrel from learning from the experience of others. And I think that if reflection on these events can help prevent any more of us from injury, it means that the loss of our fellows has not entirely been in vain. Those of you who comment on these stories, please keep in mind that we never have all the facts and be tactful in discussing the incidents.

I voted other, since you're just going to keep doing whatever you like regardless of the results.

I think the clarity and depth in thinking demonstrated in sgtsmile's post #29, and nelson249's post #32, particularly in contrast to the juvenile and simplistic thinking revealed in Bek's 26, 27 and 30, which, at best, merely set up and knock down strawmen, between making ad hominem attacks, speaks volumes.

However, at least we now can understand why Bek's comments about my posts are always so irrelevant...



... I know your one-trick-pony show all too well to read your drivel.

He doesn't read them! But that doesn't keep him from ranting about them. :rolleyes:

I voted other. I did so mainly because most of the stories posted about a cyclist getting injured or killed only provide us with an incomplete picture. Discussion about specifics of lane positioning, for instance, is often purely speculative because the media outlets that report these stories are not interested in any comment about the safety of cycling but merely in reporting the bare bones of events to sell newspapers. For example, my local fishwrap reported that last night a cyclist was beaten and his bike stolen by some guys in a truck but there was no elaboration on what was the relationship between the victim and the attackers. Was it a traffic beef that got out of control? Was it a case that victim owed money to the attackers? Or was the bike stolen and the attackers taking the law into their own hands to recover stolen property? We simply don't know.

In principle, however, I have no quarrel from learning from the experience of others. And I think that if reflection on these events can help prevent any more of us from injury, it means that the loss of our fellows has not entirely been in vain. Those of you who comment on these stories, please keep in mind that we never have all the facts and be tactful in discussing the incidents.


Yes. Rarely do we know the whole story--sometimes only a tiny piece of it, but that doesn't stop some people from posting things that go well beyond the scope of the original post. If it has something worthwhile to do with the post, good, let's read it.....it's when personal garbage comes into it that it starts that downhill slide into a personal vendetta between 3 or 4 people, and when that happens, it is totally counterproductive. Tact and common sense goes a long way here. Trying to hammer one's personal views over and over and over goes nowhere.

Tom, do you discern a significant difference between "Trying to hammer one's personal views over and over" and "explaining the reasons one holds the views that he holds, and inquiring as to the reasons others hold different views, over and over"?

Trying to hammer one's personal views over and over and over goes nowhere.

It might go nowhere with you but new people join these forums every day. If you are tired of reading about someone's personal views, put that person on ignore and go on your merry way. To tell that person to stop posting just because you don't like his posts is a bit selfish, don't you think?

I haven't told anyone to stop posting, have I? No. I stand by what I wrote.

The OP turned a thread about a child's death immediately (post #2!) into a platform for VC proselytizing, which made me sick, and apparently made enough other forumites sick that they locked down the thread. Apparently, he hasn't finished ambulance-chasing so he's started yet another thread to talk about it. The OP has also admitted on several occasions to driving everywhere he goes because cycling on busy roads is not practical for him. Did I miss anything?

I haven't told anyone to stop posting, have I? No. I stand by what I wrote.

Almost every post is a personal view no matter who it comes from. You said that posting in such a way that "[tries] to hammer one's personal views over and over and over goes nowhere." If you are telling someone that their posts go nowhere, aren't you saying or implying that they'd be better off not posting at all? If not, then please explain. If you are focussing on the "hammer" point, then maybe you have a point but that's some peoples' style and sometimes that's what it takes to get a point across.

Well, so far only 11 members out of 40 who voted feel that it is "inappropriate and/or disrespectful to speculate about what may have caused a fatal crash." And I wonder how many of those eleven have voted that way only, or primarily, because of a personal vendetta.

Yes. Rarely do we know the whole story--sometimes only a tiny piece of it, but that doesn't stop some people from posting things that go well beyond the scope of the original post. If it has something worthwhile to do with the post, good, let's read it.....it's when personal garbage comes into it that it starts that downhill slide into a personal vendetta between 3 or 4 people, and when that happens, it is totally counterproductive. Tact and common sense goes a long way here. Trying to hammer one's personal views over and over and over goes nowhere.


I thought you might need to read it again. I thought I was clear.

I thought you might need to read it again. I thought I was clear.
I think JoeJack and I read it carefully the first time.

You, on the other hand, have ignored our follow-up comments and questions.


Tom, do you discern a significant difference between "Trying to hammer one's personal views over and over" and "explaining the reasons one holds the views that he holds, and inquiring as to the reasons others hold different views, over and over"?


Almost every post is a personal view no matter who it comes from. You said that posting in such a way that "[tries] to hammer one's personal views over and over and over goes nowhere." If you are telling someone that their posts go nowhere, aren't you saying or implying that they'd be better off not posting at all? If not, then please explain. If you are focussing on the "hammer" point, then maybe you have a point but that's some peoples' style and sometimes that's what it takes to get a point across.

My favorite HH thread was the one where he drove to the dentist because traffic was so bad, but when the dentist expressed an opinion that cycling in traffic is unsafe, he gave him an earful of VC-jargon. I'm guessing he had to have some teeth removed to prevent him from choking on irony.

My favorite HH thread was the one where he drove to the dentist because traffic was so bad, but when the dentist expressed an opinion that cycling in traffic is unsafe, he gave him an earful of VC-jargon.
Yeah right. As if mentioning that cycling is not necessarily as unsafe as it may seem from a car driver's perspective is such a horrible thing to do and giving anyone an "earful of VC-jargon".

Good going. Yes, let's make it our mission to keep it a secret that cycling is really pretty safe. Let's do our part in letting all the "cycling is inherently dangerous" stereotypes and superstitions persist out there. Yes, that's good advocacy. :rolleyes:

Here are the actual words from the dentist thread, by the way.



I had a typical conversation yesterday, this time with my dentist,
during a checkup. We were talking about how busy our lives were,
stress, etc., and I noted that my chance to get relief from all that
comes from riding my bike to work. As it turns out, our commutes are
reverse of each other (he works near where I live, but lives a 15
minute ride from where I work).

He said that he couldn't ride to work because he "would be killed" by
the time he got to the office. Thinking that he meant "killed" by the
physical effort required to ride from his home to his work, I assured
him that it wasn't that far, and he could quite easily get in the
shape necessary to make it. He quickly corrected my wrong assumption
- "oh no, it's those women in their suvs chatting on their cellphones
not paying attention to the road that would kill me".


Oh yeah. A big earful of VC jargon. :rolleyes:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=181812

The OP turned a thread about a child's death immediately (post #2!) into a platform for VC proselytizing, which made me sick, and apparently made enough other forumites sick that they locked down the thread. Apparently, he hasn't finished ambulance-chasing so he's started yet another thread to talk about it. The OP has also admitted on several occasions to driving everywhere he goes because cycling on busy roads is not practical for him. Did I miss anything?

No, I think that covered it.

The same trivialization of human life that permeates society today where it is OK to kill a cyclist and use the excuse you 'didnt see them' or something else to try to escape responsibility for your actions is the same mentality that thinks turning the sad event into fodder for disection and speculation on an internet site, OK too. Its one thing to make up hypothetical situations and discuss them and call each other idiots over the various opinions that dont meet with yours but its a whole 'nother thing to take an actual tragic event you were not at or know anything about and apply those same speculations and opinions.
I dont think its tasteful or appropriate.

I didn't vote - this is just another of HH's attempts to use polls to justify being a freakin one-issue zealot.

As far as the threads of issue are concerned, there is a difference between having an objective discussion in an attempt to learn something, and some zealot gleefully using the tragedy to promote his/her own narrow agenda.

Example: Someone is killed in a gun accident. Discussing the issue of firearm safety in relation to the incident is acceptable, some NRA or anti-gun nut using the issue to promote their political agendas, like new laws or repealing laws or electing certain people, etc. is just ambulance chasing and is the sure sign of a zealot with no scruples.

I didn't vote - this is just another of HH's attempts to use polls to justify being a freakin one-issue zealot.

As far as the threads of issue are concerned, there is a difference between having an objective discussion in an attempt to learn something, and some zealot gleefully using the tragedy to promote his/her own narrow agenda.

Example: Someone is killed in a gun accident. Discussing the issue of firearm safety in relation to the incident is acceptable, some NRA or anti-gun nut using the issue to promote their political agendas, like new laws or repealing laws or electing certain people, etc. is just ambulance chasing and is the sure sign of a zealot with no scruples.

+1.

HH, did you know there's a group of anti-war protesters who routinely demonstrate at the funerals of soldiers who were killed? Sounds like a group that's right up your alley.