Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Who is responsible for your safety?

Remsav, and Ed, help me out here.

Because something might happen over which you have no control, means you won't take total responsibility for your safety?

Is that what you're saying? If not, what are you saying?

somebody please put this thread out of its misery!

+1 :beer: someone needs to open the dictionary again :crash: so we can go over the meaning of mundane words :fight:


Never mind, it's not the dictionary def but psychology mumble jumbo voodoo theory.

"Partial but substantial responsibility

In its forms positing less than total responsibility, the doctrine appears in nearly all motivational programs, some psychotherapy, and large group awareness training programs. In programs as non-controversial as the Dale Carnegie books and courses or Norman Vincent Peale's books on the power of positive thinking, it functions as a mechanism to point out that each individual does affect the perceived world by the decisions they make each day and by the choices they made in the past. These less absolute forms may be expressed within the rubric that we cannot control the situations that befall us, but we can at least control our attitudes toward them.

[edit] Total responsibility

In its more absolute form, the doctrine becomes both more pronounced and more controversial. Perhaps the most prominent dividing line of controversy is the threshold of reversed mental causation, where sufficient responsibility is assigned to the individual that their thoughts or mental attitudes are considered the actual cause of external situations or physical occurrences rather than vice-versa, along the lines of the catchphrase, "mind over matter." In this realm the doctrine can present controversial propositions such as, "you chose to have cancer and can just as easily become well if you choose," or the even more shocking and initially unpalatable proposition, "this genocide took place because the victims wanted to die." Despite the extremity of these positions, there are indeed groups and schools of thought subscribing to the doctrine of responsibility assumption that would support these propositions and more.[1]

[edit] Divine responsibility

Responsibility, in this sense, is distinguished from cause. This concept represents the position that, in principle, each individual exists as-a-God while in practice one is constrained by the fact of multiple so call 'Gods.' This combined principle and constraint, results in a context where individuals have the possibility of creating anything-at-all but lack the strength to do so since such would require one God having power over another. Reduced to the barest of terms, an individual assumes responsibility for all events even though one is not in the place of causing all events. It is like an omnipotent God without the freedom to pick among multiple choices—always only the perfect choice—yet, as God, is still held accountable because the potential freedom to make any choice still remains. If creation is the context and full awareness is the goal, then creation flows through the life of an individual as the cause and the individual assumes responsibility for this creation as if it was his/her own. In this model, any notion of an omnipotent God is a God in which all responsibilities are delegated. One might call this "Delegated Divine Responsibility" but "Divine Responsibility" is held to be more fitting as it authentically represents an individual's stance while making no assumptions about an omnipotent God"

Ed,

I get what you're trying to say, but I just don't see the relevance.

Let me put it this way. Only human beings can take responsibility. Do you have any kids? Who is responsible for them? Even if a parent chooses to "delegate" responsibility to a babysitter, the parent who takes full responsibility for that child remains responsible even when the child is in the hands of the babysitter. That's why that parent takes care in choosing the babysitter, making sure the locks work, the phone numbers and emergency contacts are known, etc. When the parent leaves the child in the hands of the babysitter, is the parent any less responsible? I'm a parent, and, let me tell you, no way.

Now, of the 6.7 billion or so humans on this earth, which ones, besides you, take responsibility for your safety when you're cycling in traffic? That guy stopped at the next intersection? You think so? How do you know? Are you willing to gamble that he has taken responsibility for your safety? Even if the guy waves at you to indicate you can go, by choosing to trust him, are you even one iota less responsible for your safety than you were moments earlier? No way.


"if some bastard breaks every law in the book and runs you over in the process, it will be your fault and nobody else's. " -Robert Hurst

I see that this boils down to the question of placement and acceptance of responsibility. The guy at the intersection, to use your example, has a responsibility placed upon him by the conventions and rules of the road. He also may or may not choose to take it. However, it is rather a leap of logic to say that I am responsible for my fate should I choose to assume that Mr intersection obeys the rules, but infact does not and runs me over. (This has actually happened to me).

I do understand about riding in an observant fashion and using common sense (heavens, I've ridden many many 1000's miles). But I cannot predict every other action, so whatever the "responsibility" on my part, some still lies with others.

Ed

My point has everything to do with the context of the original question and of responsibility. Mr Hurst present a bleak, emotive and charged picture of the way he wishes to see the world. Everyone has it in for him, noone will look out for him. Sylvester Stallone could star in this one.

I'm talking about legal AND social responsibility but perhaps in a different way. This is the responsibility that everyone has to make travel safe. It is possible to cause accidents with my bike through irresponsible actions.

Ed

1. I do not agree with that characterization of the Hurst quote. I don't beleive he is saying the world is bleak and everyone is out to get him. Rather, he is saying that the best way to ensure your own safety is to ACT LIKE everyone is out to get you. There is a big difference. This is not a "bleak, emotive and charged picture" of the world; rather, it is the minset of a pragmatist trying to ensure his own safety.

This is nothing more than applied game theory really. When given the choice of 2 actions in the face of 2 possible outcomes, it is always better to choose the outcome with the least amount of risk. In other words, there are four possibilities

a. I assume the car is going to blow the red light and I am cautious when I approach the interesection AND the car does blow the light-------then I will avoid the accident and not die.

b. I assume the car is going to blow the red light and I am cautious when I approach the intersection AND the car DOES NOT blow the red light------then the most I have lost is a few seconds of my life.

c. I assume the car will obey the traffic signal and ride through the green looking straight ahead, AND the car DOES stop at the light-------then I have lost nothing.

d. I assume the car will obey the traffic light and ride through the green looking straight ahead , AND the car DOES NOT STOP at the light, -------then I get killed.

In sum, the risk of non-action (getting killed) is so severe compared with the loss in taking action (wasting a few seconds slowing down and looking) that a rational person should choose to act cautiosly, assume, the worst, and plan accordingly. This is why parties to a crime always rat out the other guy---the benefits to being the first to rat (shorter or no prison time) far outweigh the risk in not ratting (the other guy rats on you and you serve a life sentence)

Thus, don't assume cars will stop at lights or traffic control signals. Don't assume cars will use their signals. Don't assume the guy who just parked will look back before opening the door.

2. I think the OP is making a distinction between who IS RESPONSIBLE and whether one TAKES RESPONSIBILITY for one's safety. I believe there are separate connotations when the word is used as a verb versus its use as a noun.

Part of the confusion, I think, is due to the discrepency between the title of the thread and the poll question that was asked. "Who is responsible for your safety" vs "Do you take total responsibility for your safety." These are, in fact, two separate questions.

Half the people in this poll admit they are not taking full responsibility for their own safety

Who doesn't take total responsibility for THEIR actions when riding in traffic? Apparently, about half the poll respondents, so far.
Thanks for skewing my poll choice to fit your needs. Funny, I don't remember selecting "I admit that I do not take full responsibility for my own safety" "I do not take total responsibility for my actions" when I took the poll.

Maybe you should have written the poll more clearly, then you wouldn't have to try so hard. But of course, although you take responsibility for your actions, it was my responsibility to read your mind, and know that when you listed "Yes, I accept full responsibility for my safety." as one of the options, what you really meant was "As far as is reasonably possible, I take responsibility for my actions, but of course drivers are responsible for theirs". I must be an idiot, because that definition sounds a lot like option 2, to me. But my opinion doesn't really matter, does it. Even though you asked for it.

But it's all OK, becuase, after the fact, you posted your little semantics game:

The urban cyclist should cast the twin concepts of blame and legal liability on the scrap heap and forget about them. In other words, "Let's cite etymological examples to justify changing the definition of "responsibility" to exclude other examples we find hinder our case, like "legal responsibility" (yes, the word "responsible pops up in the vehicle code from time-to-time) and "moral responsibility". We'll call them "liability" and "blame"."

Thanks for insulting me (others can thank you individually). Thanks for always being right. Thanks for asking for my opinion, and then twisting it to mean something else.

You know, before I started reading your posts on BF, HH, I was doing some research and beginning to consider myself a possible VC advocate. Then I started reading your posts. I ride the way I think is safe and legal, but as far as advocacy goes, when anybody asks me about VC, I show them some of your posts. And then they look vaguely naseated.

You're doin' a heckuva job being and advocate....

You know, it's a rare occasion these days that I find myself contributing to one of HH's threads and every single time that I do it's exactly like allowing myself to engage the Jehova's witness doorknockers. The one-eyed zealotry is the same, so are the backflips and ever shift ambiguous word games to suit their preposterous positions. All I'm left with is the same old questin "These people really do beleive their own BS, why did I even bother?"
As a former JW doorknocker myself, I have to agree with you 100%. I was insufferable. I was never wrong. I was very good at twisting other people's words. It was a miserable existence. (then I begin to devolve into a preachy rant: I was a prisoner of my own attiduninal beliefs. But then I had a cunning vision, and I am not afraid anymore.)

I'm responsible for my safety and for the safety of people around me. I trust that the people around me feel some responsibility to help keep me safe.

To me, choosing the first option of the poll is saying, to be a good urban cyclist you have to be omnipotent. Or at least you have to try to be omnipotent.

I think that's silly. You are not all-knowing and all-powerful. You won't be, no matter how hard you try. You do have to trust people around you. The craft of urban cycling is in knowing when, and in what ways, it is safe to trust them.

That's exactly how I read it too. But for some reason (that he won't identify) Chipcom thinks that I said that I believe that cyclists are always at fault, or that I attempted to say that's what Robert is saying. I keep asking for what it is that I specifically said that made him believe so, but he won't say.

The funny thing, if two people, say A and B, have a disagreement over what a third person, C, meant, then they can go ask C. That's what Chip and I are hoping to do with Robert with respect to the question of whether I misrepresented anything he wrote in this thread.

But when A & B have a disagreement over what B meant, isn't the rational thing to do is for A to ask B to clarify? But Chipcom simply declares that he knows better than I do about what I meant, doesn't ask me for clarification, doesn't explain why he came to the conclusion that I meant X when I deny meaning X, etc. His refusal to reach out and make a genuine effort, not to agree, but simply to understand each other, keeps us from being able to at least get to a point where we agree to disagree.

Your track record proceeds you, especially when it comes to polls. :rolleyes: But please continue to protest your innocence...you'll show your stripes sooner or later, you always do.

"Who is responsible for your safety" vs "Do you take total responsibility for your safety." These are, in fact, two separate questions.
Indeed.

So, who is responsible for your safety? Who knows? You certainly don't know if some random stranger is responsible or not.

Hence, the follow-up actual poll question: Do YOU take TOTAL RESPONSIBILITY for your safety?

And I like the definintion of total responsibility that remsave found:



Total responsibility

In its more absolute form, the doctrine becomes both more pronounced and more controversial. Perhaps the most prominent dividing line of controversy is the threshold of reversed mental causation, where sufficient responsibility is assigned to the individual that their thoughts or mental attitudes are considered the actual cause of external situations or physical occurrences rather than vice-versa, along the lines of the catchphrase, "mind over matter." In this realm the doctrine can present controversial propositions such as, "you chose to have cancer and can just as easily become well if you choose," or the even more shocking and initially unpalatable proposition, "this genocide took place because the victims wanted to die." Despite the extremity of these positions, there are indeed groups and schools of thought subscribing to the doctrine of responsibility assumption that would support these propositions and more.[1]


So much of cycling, and traffic cycling safety, IS mind over matter (not direct spoon-bending mind over matter, but confidence-borne mind-over-matter), that that's the point of using the term "total responsibility" in this context. The idea is to have the cyclist feel totally responsible for his own safety, in order to give him internal motivation in accordance to that belief.

You know, before I started reading your posts on BF, HH, I was doing some research and beginning to consider myself a possible VC advocate. Then I started reading your posts. I ride the way I think is safe and legal, but as far as advocacy goes, when anybody asks me about VC, I show them some of your posts. And then they look vaguely naseated.

You're doin' a heckuva job being and advocate....

Well said, you've clearly articulated my very exact experience with the VC zealots as well!

Great. Then start your own thread.

I had my own thread... you chose to hijack it to here.

See http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4010210&postcount=90

And I like the definintion of total responsibility that remsave found:


this genocide took place because the victims wanted to die

That's cute.

1. I do not agree with that characterization of the Hurst quote. I don't beleive he is saying the world is bleak and everyone is out to get him. Rather, he is saying that the best way to ensure your own safety is to ACT LIKE everyone is out to get you. There is a big difference. This is not a "bleak, emotive and charged picture" of the world; rather, it is the minset of a pragmatist trying to ensure his own safety.



Perhaps you are right. However I still feel that however well meant, Mr Hurst did not put his point across in the best way. In fact I think your interpretation is a good one. Moreover, assesment of situations with the anticipation that something untoward may happen (through the actions of other road user or otherwise) is a good way to be prepared. I have said before that experience and the ability to anticipate traffic situations are very important elements of cycling. Common sense if you will. The problem is that people feel moved to write reams on the subject, which is unnecessary. As a reductionist, I'll stop here :)

Ed

That's cute.

Not as cute (or disturbing) as your avatar.:eek: :D

Indeed.

So, who is responsible for your safety? Who knows? You certainly don't know if some random stranger is responsible or not.

Hence, the follow-up actual poll question: Do YOU take TOTAL RESPONSIBILITY for your safety?

And I like the definintion of total responsibility that remsave found:



Total responsibility

In its more absolute form, the doctrine becomes both more pronounced and more controversial. Perhaps the most prominent dividing line of controversy is the threshold of reversed mental causation, where sufficient responsibility is assigned to the individual that their thoughts or mental attitudes are considered the actual cause of external situations or physical occurrences rather than vice-versa, along the lines of the catchphrase, "mind over matter." In this realm the doctrine can present controversial propositions such as, "you chose to have cancer and can just as easily become well if you choose," or the even more shocking and initially unpalatable proposition, "this genocide took place because the victims wanted to die." Despite the extremity of these positions, there are indeed groups and schools of thought subscribing to the doctrine of responsibility assumption that would support these propositions and more.[1]


So much of cycling, and traffic cycling safety, IS mind over matter (not direct spoon-bending mind over matter, but confidence-borne mind-over-matter), that that's the point of using the term "total responsibility" in this context. The idea is to have the cyclist feel totally responsible for his own safety, in order to give him internal motivation in accordance to that belief.


In all fairness, you cannot expect all the poll respondent's to answer based on a definition of an essential term that is supplied after the fact.

So, who is responsible for your safety? Who knows? You certainly don't know if some random stranger is responsible or not.
Most drivers are responsible enough to not kill me. Of the rest, who haven't been arrested, who happen to be in positions to endanger me, who I can't see in time to react: they are part of the danger I accept to bike on the road.


And I like the definintion of total responsibility that remsave found:
You can't be serious, can you? I never would have followed this thread if I knew it was about new-age what-the-bleep nonsense.

Half the people in this poll admit they are not taking full responsibility for their own safety


Who doesn't take total responsibility for THEIR actions when riding in traffic? Apparently, about half the poll respondents, so far. Thanks for skewing my poll choice to fit your needs. Funny, I don't remember selecting "I admit that I do not take full responsibility for my own safety" The poll question is: Do you take total responsibility for your safety when cycling in traffic?

If interpreting a selection of No to that question to mean you do not take full responsibility for your own safety while cycling in traffic is skewing your answer, I'm very sorry about that. Can you understand how one might think that's a fair interpretation?

I mean, if someone asks, do you do X? And they answer, "No, ...", is it not fair to say that they don't do X?



Maybe you should have written the poll more clearly, then you wouldn't have to try so hard. I thought it was pretty clear, but apparently it wasn't. Any suggestion on how it could be clearer?


But of course, although you take responsibility for your actions, it was my responsibility to read your mind, and know that when you listed "Yes, I accept full responsibility for my safety." as one of the options, what you really meant was "As far as is reasonably possible, I take responsibility for my actions, but of course drivers are responsible for theirs". Perhaps I could have been more clear about the fact that I was asking about responsibility for your safety and not about responsibility for the actions of others. On the other hand, I did ask Do you take total responsibility for your safety when cycling in traffic?, and I did not ask whether you were responsible for the action or safety of others, or whether they were responsible for their own actions, so I'm not exactly sure how I could have been more clear on this point.


I must be an idiot, because that definition sounds a lot like option 2, to me. But my opinion doesn't really matter, does it. Even though you asked for it. Why the animosity?


But it's all OK, becuase, after the fact, you posted your little semantics game:

The urban cyclist should cast the twin concepts of blame and legal liability on the scrap heap and forget about them. For the record, that quote is from Robert Hurst, not me, and I have no idea what little semantics game you're talking about. I wrote what I meant and I meant what I wrote.


In other words, "Let's cite etymological examples to justify changing the definition of "responsibility" to exclude other examples we find hinder our case, like "legal responsibility" (yes, the word "responsible pops up in the vehicle code from time-to-time) and "moral responsibility". We'll call them "liability" and "blame"." What exactly do you think "our case" is?



Thanks for insulting me (others can thank you individually). Thanks for always being right. Thanks for asking for my opinion, and then twisting it to mean something else. Thanks for clarifying that your vote of "No" to the question Do you take total responsibility for your safety when cycling in traffic? did not mean that you do not take full responsibility for your own safety. I'll try to remember that for next time.


You know, before I started reading your posts on BF, HH, I was doing some research and beginning to consider myself a possible VC advocate. Then I started reading your posts. I ride the way I think is safe and legal, but as far as advocacy goes, when anybody asks me about VC, I show them some of your posts. And then they look vaguely naseated.

You're doin' a heckuva job being and advocate.... I'm still not quite sure what the confusion was about, but I am sorry it occured.

mr. head, you brought up you being harassed in this thread, which seems to be a clear admission that you are not totally responsible for your own safety.

sorry to have to bring it up, but it isn't 'diverting' the thread. you admit drivers have harassed you. isn't that a clear admission that you are not totally responsible for your own safety?

Chipcom, I'm a little fuzzy on your position with respect to control.

First you said, "you have no control."
Then you agreed with SB that we simply don't have absolutely total control.

You mean, it's somewhere in between?

That's what I meant when I said "false dichotomy" (you seemed to imply that the only alternative to total control is no control) in response to your assertion that we have no control. #115. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4016460&postcount=115)
But you didn't like that either, saying in #120:


Can you clarify what you mean, please?

Everything you don't understand becomes a false dichotomy. I'll say it again, since you seem to be the one with a reading comprehension problem. We can and should seek to control what we can in our environment, but that control is an illusion because in the end, we have no control.

You think the things that are beyond our control are rare, I contend otherwise. The tiniest variable that may seem insignificant to you is indeed outside of your observation can set in motion events that culiminate in you having a bad day. That, my friend, is the norm, not the exception. You think you can see black-and-white well defined reasons for an accident for example, but you don't know all of the factors involved that created the situation in the first place. You think you know what happened and easily accept what seems logical based upon what you know. But you really don't - indeed it's rare that anyone really does without the kind of investigation that is simply not worth it from a cost-benefit standpoint. When I attribute this to your lack of experience I am not slamming you, just stating a fact. You have not been exposed to experiences where you see how little control we really have, I hope you never have to. But just because you haven't experienced them, doesn't mean they are not any more real.

What does all that mean in relation to the OP? Let's use this example:



a. I assume the car is going to blow the red light and I am cautious when I approach the interesection AND the car does blow the light-------then I will avoid the accident and not die.

b. I assume the car is going to blow the red light and I am cautious when I approach the intersection AND the car DOES NOT blow the red light------then the most I have lost is a few seconds of my life.

c. I assume the car will obey the traffic signal and ride through the green looking straight ahead, AND the car DOES stop at the light-------then I have lost nothing.

d. I assume the car will obey the traffic light and ride through the green looking straight ahead , AND the car DOES NOT STOP at the light, -------then I get killed.

This leaves out two all too common options:

e. I assume the car is going to blow the red light and I am cautious when I approach the interesection AND the car does blow the light-------and I die or am seriously injured by that car, despite my preparations.

f. I assume the car is going to blow the red light and I am cautious when I approach the interesection AND the car does blow the light-------and I die or am seriously injured by something other than the threat I was prepared for.

If you think I am crazy or overly cynical, fine, that does not mean that what I am saying is not valid or even some wild new concept - it's not. Do some research on chaos theory, sensitive dependence or the currently popular term; butterfly effect.

I take the text you quoted from Robert as a warning that you cannot depend upon other's to look out for your interests and that blame, after the fact, is pointless. But, unlike you, and perhaps Robert too, I understand that all too often our best laid plans are not enough and nobody is to blame.

You can't be serious, can you? I never would have followed this thread if I knew it was about new-age what-the-bleep nonsense.

I certainly agree with that!--That definition is absurd. Saying one should at all times be cognizant of the risks inherent in cycling and take appropriate precautionary measures is a far cry from saying that ANY accident is CAUSED by my mental state. Indeed that definition of "responsibility" contradicts the meaning of the Hurst quote, which advises the cyclist to seperate the legal/moral/ethical cause of an accident from the cyclist's actions and state of mind to prevent the accident.

"Don't leave your fate to the stars, or to luck." - Robert Hurst

Did I say to do either? Accepting that you don't have ultimate control does not mean you don't seek to control what you can. I think I stated that plainly enough...reading comprehension again?

I thought it was pretty clear, but apparently it wasn't. Any suggestion on how it could be clearer?
When I first read the title to this thread, I asked, "What kind of a question is that?" If I were to take the question at face value, of course I would answer that I am responsible. I'm not a mental invalid, or a toddler, or a non-combatant being escorted through a war zone. But that's a dumb question to ask, so clearly there's more to it. I knew there would be pages of semantic arguments ahead, so I didn't vote.

You can't be serious, can you? I never would have followed this thread if I knew it was about new-age what-the-bleep nonsense. Now that I reread it, it does sound more like spoon-bending nonsense. I thought it was saying something else. Never mind.

This leaves out two all too common options:

e. I assume the car is going to blow the red light and I am cautious when I approach the interesection AND the car does blow the light-------and I die or am seriously injured by that car, despite my preparations.

f. I assume the car is going to blow the red light and I am cautious when I approach the interesection AND the car does blow the light-------and I die or am seriously injured by something other than the threat I was prepared for.

If you think I am crazy or overly cynical, fine, that does not mean that what I am saying is not valid or even some wild new concept - it's not. Do some research on chaos theory, sensitive dependence or the currently popular term; butterfly effect.

I agree with e & f as "possibilities" to my scenario and I am well aware of chaos theory. However, E & F were not listed by me because they are risks that cannot be accounted for by the choices available to me. Game theory invovles the comparative risks we face based on behaviors we choose and recognizes that we can minimize those risks. I completely agree with you that some things are out of our control.


But given that nothing I can do can prevent E & F, these "possibilities" should not figure into my risk/benefit calculation as the risk of E & F is the same no matter what course I choose.


The risk table is simply a tool to demonstrate that more times than not, we are better served by acting in accordance with the worst possible outcome. Now of course, this changes when one applies certain frequency values to the result. To be 100% methodologically proper, the we would have to assign percentages to the risk of the different outcomes based on our behavior. Thus, the result in A might be 80% and B might be 5% or whatever. Given that it is impossible for me to quantify the liklihood of the end results, I did not include percentages in my illustration, which, again, was merely used as a tool to demonstrate a cost/benefit analysis---it was not meant to represent the full spectrum of ALL possibilities.

we have no control.
Just tell me this, when you say "we have no control", do you mean "We don't have any control", "we don't have total control", or something else? I have been assuming you meant the former, but now I think you mean the latter. But I don't want to assume and get it wrong...

Well said, you've clearly articulated my very exact experience with the VC zealots as well!

I wish I could be as insightful and eloquent as zeytoun usually is, even when he's tearing ME apart. ;)

Everything you don't understand becomes a false dichotomy. I'll say it again, since you seem to be the one with a reading comprehension problem. We can and should seek to control what we can in our environment, but that control is an illusion because in the end, we have no control.

You think the things that are beyond our control are rare, I contend otherwise. The tiniest variable that may seem insignificant to you is indeed outside of your observation can set in motion events that culiminate in you having a bad day. That, my friend, is the norm, not the exception. You think you can see black-and-white well defined reasons for an accident for example, but you don't know all of the factors involved that created the situation in the first place. You think you know what happened and easily accept what seems logical based upon what you know. But you really don't - indeed it's rare that anyone really does without the kind of investigation that is simply not worth it from a cost-benefit standpoint. When I attribute this to your lack of experience I am not slamming you, just stating a fact. You have not been exposed to experiences where you see how little control we really have, I hope you never have to. But just because you haven't experienced them, doesn't mean they are not any more real.

What does all that mean in relation to the OP? Let's use this example:



This leaves out two all too common options:

e. I assume the car is going to blow the red light and I am cautious when I approach the interesection AND the car does blow the light-------and I die or am seriously injured by that car, despite my preparations.

f. I assume the car is going to blow the red light and I am cautious when I approach the interesection AND the car does blow the light-------and I die or am seriously injured by something other than the threat I was prepared for.

If you think I am crazy or overly cynical, fine, that does not mean that what I am saying is not valid or even some wild new concept - it's not. Do some research on chaos theory, sensitive dependence or the currently popular term; butterfly effect.

I take the text you quoted from Robert as a warning that you cannot depend upon other's to look out for your interests and that blame, after the fact, is pointless. But, unlike you, and perhaps Robert too, I understand that all too often our best laid plans are not enough and nobody is to blame.

You left out several, even more common options...

g. I assume the driver is going to stop for the red, the driver blows the light, ET in my basket levitates me safely over the red light blower.

h. I assume the driver is going to blow the red light, I notice its a cute blonde behind the wheel, I pretend to be a red light.

Happens all the time! :p

I take the text you quoted from Robert as a warning that you cannot depend upon other's to look out for your interests and that blame, after the fact, is pointless. But, unlike you, and perhaps Robert too, I understand that all too often our best laid plans are not enough and nobody is to blame.


Again I agree with that statement. I never meant to iterate that we can control ALL the risks in our lives. But the recognition that some things are out of our control does not necessitate a conclusion that we have control over nothing!----The amount of sophistry here is amazing!!!!!!!!

The fact that some things are out of our control does not mean I shouldn't take what steps I CAN take to reduce the risk of "bad things."

I have been very clear on that throughout the course of this thread and do not appreciate my posts being misconstrued any more than I appreciate someone asking a question and then criticizing others for not using a definition that is supplied after the question is answered.

Thanks for skewing my poll choice to fit your needs.
Are you surprised? I'm not, see my oh so easy prediction on the outcome of this poll at msg #9 http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4009229&postcount=9.

Anyone who expects different from HH and his polls must be an A & S novice, or a silly-willyTrue Believer.

Apparrently there is no room in this forum for reasoned discussion, a middle ground, or reasonable disagreement. It seems apparent to me that unless someone joins one of the "camps" here through and through, one will be attacked on both flanks.

The silly thing is-half the time i think you guys are saying the same damn thing and you spend pages arguing over nothing other than your dislike of someone else. You people remind me of the "Peoples Front" group in the movie "Life of Brian."


I am going to return to the S & F forum where at least people can agree that drinking beer is fun.

I take the text you quoted from Robert as a warning that you cannot depend upon other's to look out for your interests and that blame, after the fact, is pointless. That's how I take it too. And that's the meaning I've always meant to convey whenever i wrote about responsibility, blame and fault.


But, unlike you, and perhaps Robert too, I understand that all too often our best laid plans are not enough and nobody is to blame. What makes you think I and even maybe Robert don't understand that?

More importantly, do you understand the potential harm in believing that to be true, even if it is true (which, again, of course it is)?

Let's try this, when Hurst says, "Blame is dangerous", what do you think he means by that?
Why is blame dangerous?

I believe the reason blame is dangerous is because blame - which essentially is blaming others for not being responsible -- is the opposite of hoarding responsibility (to use Hurst's language again). That "thinking in terms of blame while out on the road is a perfect example of self-fulling prophecy. " That "the urban cyclist's best chance is to gather all the responsibilty that can be gathered. Hoard it from those around you. " Blame is the opposite of that.

Now consider your point: "best laid plans are not enough and nobody is to blame."

Do you see how it follows to say that thinking in terms of "best laid plans are sometimes not enough and nobody is to blame" while out on the road is a perfect example of self-fulfilling prophecy?

I agree with e & f as "possibilities" to my scenario and I am well aware of chaos theory. However, E & F were not listed by me because they are risks that cannot be accounted for by the choices available to me. Game theory invovles the comparative risks we face based on behaviors we choose and recognizes that we can minimize those risks. I completely agree with you that some things are out of our control.


But given that nothing I can do can prevent E & F, these "possibilities" should not figure into my risk/benefit calculation as the risk of E & F is the same no matter what course I choose.


The risk table is simply a tool to demonstrate that more times than not, we are better served by acting in accordance with the worst possible outcome. Now of course, this changes when one applies certain frequency values to the result. To be 100% methodologically proper, the we would have to assign percentages to the risk of the different outcomes based on our behavior. Thus, the result in A might be 80% and B might be 5% or whatever. Given that it is impossible for me to quantify the liklihood of the end results, I did not include percentages in my illustration, which, again, was merely used as a tool to demonstrate a cost/benefit analysis---it was not meant to represent the full spectrum of ALL possibilities.


I agree that we can't prevent E and it does not enter into our planning process, but if one is supposed to be 'totally responsible' , then F IS something that must be considered - which is just about impossible and thus renders the 'total responsibility' theory moot. When it's nut cutting time, you don't have time to apply a nice risk analysis methodology, you make snap decisions, act and react. You cannot focus on that car you think is going to run the light and miss the guy behind you who has no idea of what is happening and plows into you from the rear, yet you simply cannot process and prioritize all of the potential threats in any orderly, logical fashion. If you are 'totally responsible' you should have seen that guy behind you and dealt with him too, as well as the little girl on the sidewalk fixing to use the crosswalk, the dog darting out from between some parked cars, the lady in the other lane yapping on her cell phone and not paying attention, etc, etc. Any one of those variables can be the one that ultimately leads to something bad happening, even if they don't seem like the obvious threat or are even observed at all. All you can do is take responsibility for your own actions, you cannot be 'totally responsible for your own safety' because too many variables are outside of your control. That is why I think this entire poll is silly. It could have easily been written 'do you take responsibility for your own actions regarding your safety' and all of this nonsensical debate could have been avoided, but as I mentioned before, there is another purpose to this poll, it is not just an innocent attempt at enlightenment.

I agree that we can't prevent E and it does not enter into our planning process, but if one is supposed to be 'totally responsible' , then F IS something that must be considered - which is just about impossible and thus renders the 'total responsibility' theory moot. When it's nut cutting time, you don't have time to apply a nice risk analysis methodology, you make snap decisions, act and react. You cannot focus on that car you think is going to run the light and miss the guy behind you who has no idea of what is happening and plows into you from the rear, yet you simply cannot process and prioritize all of the potential threats in any orderly, logical fashion. If you are 'totally responsible' you should have seen that guy behind you and dealt with him too, as well as the little girl on the sidewalk fixing to use the crosswalk, the dog darting out from between some parked cars, the lady in the other lane yapping on her cell phone and not paying attention, etc, etc. Any one of those variables can be the one that ultimately leads to something bad happening, even if they don't seem like the obvious threat or are even observed at all. All you can do is take responsibility for your own actions, you cannot be 'totally responsible for your own safety' because too many variables are outside of your control. That is why I think this entire poll is silly. It could have easily been written 'do you take responsibility for your own actions regarding your safety' and all of this nonsensical debate could have been avoided, but as I mentioned before, there is another purpose to this poll, it is not just an innocent attempt at enlightenment.

This is where I disagree with you:


If you are 'totally responsible' you should have seen that guy behind you and dealt with him too, as well as the little girl on the sidewalk fixing to use the crosswalk, the dog darting out from between some parked cars, the lady in the other lane yapping on her cell phone and not paying attention, etc, etc.

You seem to interchange the meaning of 'totally responsible' with 'having total control'. In other words, I do agree the following is true:


If you 'have total control' you should have seen that guy behind you and dealt with him too, as well as the little girl on the sidewalk fixing to use the crosswalk, the dog darting out from between some parked cars, the lady in the other lane yapping on her cell phone and not paying attention, etc, etc.

But being 'totally responsible' does not mean having total control and being capable of handling anything that may happen. But what 'totally responsible' does mean is that you can't count on anyone else to do it for you, if you can't.

In other words, taking total responsibility for your safety while cycling in traffic means you are not counting on anyone else to be responsible for your safety. But taking total responsibility for your own safety does not at all preclude the possibility that your safety may still be compromised.

there is another purpose to this poll, it is not just an innocent attempt at enlightenment.
Oh, please. What on earth could possibly be the purpose of this poll if not an innocent attempt at enlightenment?

Seriously, I'm just trying to bring attention to the concept of responsibility as conveyed in Robert's book.

What do you think the purpose is?

Apparrently there is no room in this forum for reasoned discussion, a middle ground, or reasonable disagreement. It seems apparent to me that unless someone joins one of the "camps" here through and through, one will be attacked on both flanks.

The silly thing is-half the time i think you guys are saying the same damn thing and you spend pages arguing over nothing other than your dislike of someone else. You people remind me of the "Peoples Front" group in the movie "Life of Brian."


I am going to return to the S & F forum where at least people can agree that drinking beer is fun.
Thank you for your analysis. I'm sure you will find the "reasoned discussion" you are looking for amongst your pals on the S & F forum. By-Bye!

That's good. You're looking at an incident that was negative to you from the perspective of how your behavior contributed to it happening.

One (arguably extreme) point to be observed is that your choice to ride in the street was such a contributory factor - if you had chosen to ride on the bike path, or not ride at all, then that certainly would have prevented it.

But, if I understand Robert's meaning, he wants you to look at your specific behavior at that place, and for, say, the minute prior to it. Is there anything you could have done to prevent it?

Could you have been better aware of your situation? Could you have been observing behind and seen that bus coming long before it reached you? Could you have noted the path it was on, and its conflict to you, while you still had a chance to do something about it? Could you have looked back over your shoulder, signalled left, and moved left a few feet while the bus was still far enough back to be able to safely slow down to your speed and/or change lanes to pass, making it clear in no uncertain terms that you had no intention to share the lane with him?

Just asking...

so i guess your answer to perfect personal responsibility is to get off the streets where we might endanger ourselves?
as far as i'm concerned, robert hurst can get bent, forrester can get inserted, and HH can clean up after them.

as far as i'm concerned, robert hurst can get bent, forrester can get inserted, and HH can clean up after them.

HH, if you ever want to know what impact your 'advocacy' has had on the vast majority of cyclists that have endured your threads all you have to do is re-read the above quote.

Congratulations :beer:

.. so if Hurst's theory of the cyclist being absolutely responsible for everything then the first responsible decision for the cyclist to make would be to drive a car rather than ride a bike.

True. If you take absolute responsibility for staying out of trouble on the bike, the only decision to make would be to stay off the bike entirely. What if you really want to ride though?

It is my opinion that, despite the strong language in the passage quoted by HH, Hurst's theory on responsibility is a bit more realistic than it is made out to be in this rather bizarro thread.

If we cyclists don't place any trust in drivers, never give away any of the power over own own fates to strangers, we could never get anywhere. We could never ride anywhere but a velodrome closed for our private use. In particular, every time we are passed by a car there is something going on which is out of the cyclist's control; responsibility for our safety is given over, at least partially, to complete strangers on a frequent basis. It's an unfortunate reality of sharing space with other users. As we ride from the city centers to the suburbs and beyond, the percentage of responsibility that we can hoard for ourselves is less and less.

You have to trust, but I think you also have to recognize when you're doing it and what the stakes are. In traffic, trusting strangers without realizing it is a bad thing. Perhaps minimizing the amount of trust placed in drivers is the best policy.

Robert

True. If you take absolute responsibility for staying out of trouble on the bike, the only decision to make would be to stay off the bike entirely. What if you really want to ride though?

It is my opinion that, despite the strong language in the passage quoted by HH, Hurst's theory on responsibility is a bit more realistic than it is made out to be in this rather bizarro thread.

If we cyclists don't place any trust in drivers, never give away any of the power over own own fates to strangers, we could never get anywhere. We could never ride anywhere but a velodrome closed for our private use. In particular, every time we are passed by a car there is something going on which is out of the cyclist's control; responsibility for our safety is given over, at least partially, to complete strangers on a frequent basis. It's an unfortunate reality of sharing space with other users. As we ride from the city centers to the suburbs and beyond, the percentage of responsibility that we can hoard for ourselves is less and less.

You have to trust, but I think you also have to recognize when you're doing it and what the stakes are. In traffic, trusting strangers without realizing it is a bad thing. Perhaps minimizing the amount of trust placed in drivers is the best policy.

Robert

Thank you for finally weighing in. I wish you could have done so sooner and we could have avoided all the strange tangents this thread took. It's nice to have the actual author around sometimes to clarify their work. ;)

I am going to return to the S & F forum where at least people can agree that drinking beer is fun.

I prefer to drink wine.

This thread really is very silly. We all pretty much agree that we're responsible for our safety. The only place we seem to disagree is that some of us believe that motorists are responsible for driving safely and not putting us in danger to begin with, some of us accept that they'll never be responsible so you may as well try to deal with it as well as you can--no guarantees, and some of us believe that if you act now, you can obtain the secrets of bicycle salvation.

Operators are standing by.

The fact that some things are out of our control does not mean I shouldn't take what steps I CAN take to reduce the risk of "bad things."


That's pretty much what it comes down to.


"Only a few prefer liberty -- the majority seek nothing more than fair masters" --Sallust, Histories

Spoken like a true slave owner, eh?

Robert

I wish I could be as insightful and eloquent as zeytoun usually is, even when he's tearing ME apart.
Good thing you said "usually", cause I was getting embarrassed. :o

----

Helmet Head, either you realize what is going on or you don't. You start a poll with two painfully similar choices, the meanings of which change subtly every few posts (the only authoritative interpretation belonging of course to you). The thread may have always meant one thing to you, but if it was clearly presented to everyone, why is there so much debate about it? Is everyone incorrect, except you? And I am pretty sure you can win any argument sheerly by quoting and splitting hairs until everyone gives up. That makes you stubborn, not right. Between that, and expressing your "mind over matter" belief (which smacks of Social Darwinism - don't get me wrong, I am sure we have a lot more control over our destiny then we realize, but the day that I judge a victim of violence as being responsible because he didn't "take responsibility" for another person's evil act, may someone please hit me really hard), I am having a hard time wondering whether you are insane, or merely a passive-aggressive cyborg.

I don't think you're misunderstood. I think the problem is that other people understand you better then you understand yourself. That must be frustrating.

You aren't by any chance a Virgo with Taurus rising are you? ;)

True. If you take absolute responsibility for staying out of trouble on the bike, the only decision to make would be to stay off the bike entirely. What if you really want to ride though?

It is my opinion that, despite the strong language in the passage quoted by HH, Hurst's theory on responsibility is a bit more realistic than it is made out to be in this rather bizarro thread.

If we cyclists don't place any trust in drivers, never give away any of the power over own own fates to strangers, we could never get anywhere. We could never ride anywhere but a velodrome closed for our private use. In particular, every time we are passed by a car there is something going on which is out of the cyclist's control; responsibility for our safety is given over, at least partially, to complete strangers on a frequent basis. It's an unfortunate reality of sharing space with other users. As we ride from the city centers to the suburbs and beyond, the percentage of responsibility that we can hoard for ourselves is less and less.

You have to trust, but I think you also have to recognize when you're doing it and what the stakes are. In traffic, trusting strangers without realizing it is a bad thing. Perhaps minimizing the amount of trust placed in drivers is the best policy.

Robert
:beer:

That last paragraph is exactly what I mean to stress with "trust, but verify".

Good thing you said "usually", cause I was getting embarrassed. :o

----

Helmet Head, either you realize what is going on or you don't. You start a poll with two painfully similar choices, the meanings of which change subtly every few posts (the only authoritative interpretation belonging of course to you). The thread may have always meant one thing to you, but if it was clearly presented to everyone, why is there so much debate about it? Is everyone incorrect, except you? Of course not. There is no correct answer.


And I am pretty sure you can win any argument sheerly by quoting and splitting hairs until everyone gives up. That makes you stubborn, not right. I don't even know how I could win an argument in this thread. I don't even know what the argument would be in this thread.


Between that, and expressing your "mind over matter" belief (which smacks of Social Darwinism - don't get me wrong, I am sure we have a lot more control over our destiny then we realize, but the day that I judge a victim of violence as being responsible because he didn't "take responsibility" for another person's evil act, may someone please hit me really hard), I am having a hard time wondering whether you are insane, or merely a passive-aggressive cyborg. What I should have said was "positive thinking". And also the "ownership" factor - if you feel you "own" something, including the total responsibilty for your safety, you're more likely to take better care of it than if it is "co-owned". That's closer to what I was thinking.


I don't think you're misunderstood. I think the problem is that other people understand you better then you understand yourself. That must be frustrating. It is. Especially since they are unable to explain it.

Whatever. I intended to bring attention to the "Hurst theory of responsibility". I accomplished that.

Unfortunately, somehow I also managed to p!$$ off some more people in the process, for reasons I still cannot understand. Can't win 'em all. Stay tuned for the vigilance thread!


You aren't by any chance a Virgo with Taurus rising are you? ;) No.

The guy that sold me the bike is responsible.

OK, I picked number 2. As others have mentioned, you can be the safest rider living, and it won't help you if a cement truck makes a sudden turn into you.

mr. head, you ARE NOT the sole arbitrater of our collective riding techiques in this forum. You are NOT the judge, nor the educator, or the seer.

you are another rider, just like the rest of us. maybe you don't ride as much as a lot of the dedicated transportationalists that post here, but hey, that's neither here nor there.

Please, for the sake of the forum, give your soapbox a rest and realize, you are a rider, just like the rest of us that post here.

Please, mr. head, YOU are NOT responsible for OUR safety.

I chose "yes, I accept full responsibility for my safety," but only because there's really no other choice in this poll, or on the road for that matter. Yes, I fully expect motorists to act like responsible adults, and they almost always do, but the simple fact is, I have no control whatsoever over what another individual decides to do, and to pretend otherwise is simply stupid. I only have control over my own actions; if some idiot in a SUV does something that endangers my safety, the only rational thing to do is to respond decisively. Insisting that the angry young wanna-be gansta in the Escalade be concerned about my well-being is simply a waste of time. Ultimately, whether you like it or not, the only person who's going to insure your safety is, well, you.

First of all I admit that this thread confuses me in many ways. I find it highly disorienting.


It means you're responsible to know who at any given time is in a position to cause you harm, and to make sure that that does not happen.

You're responsible to know what the risks are, taking into account that all drivers are inattentive some of the time, that some drivers are extraordinarly incompetent, and that there are some drivers out there who actually might want to harm you, and to make your choices accordingly. You're responsible for what happens as a result of those choices.

Yes. with the understanding that cycling in traffic will necessarily involve some elements out of our control, for practicality's sake. (The uncomfortable fact is that there will always be some Russian Roulette out there. It doesn't do us much good to dwell on it -- worry about what you can do something about, which is often much more than we realize.) Now, how is that different from Chipcom's 'plan for Murphy'? Seems like one and the same to me: we try to recognize all the possible scenarios in hopes of staying one step ahead of the worst-case (within reason) should it come to pass. How are we going to stay one step ahead if we don't have the situational awareness to understand/recognize what might go down at any given time. Isn't this the same as Chipcom Cycling® (CC)? Do we have a language problem? Can't we all just get along? Can I have an extra side of bacon with my Super Slam breakfast?

And I'm really confused by another thing -- how does your endorsement of this notion of gathering up all the responsibility that can be gathered jibe with the idea that you were promoting in another thread of VC as a 'safety net' for cyclists on 'autopilot'? I think what you are saying here would very much disapprove of what you were saying there.

Robert

Unfortunately, somehow I also managed to p!$$ off some more people in the process, for reasons I still cannot understand. Can't win 'em all. Stay tuned for the vigilance thread!
And those who are on your winning team? Quite the clique of advocates, eh?