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

Do you take total responsibility for your safety when cycling in traffic, or do you hold others at least partially responsible?

EDIT:

This poll assumes a very simplistic and naive concept of responsibility. Since I did not originally specify what I meant by responsibiilty, intentionally allowing each person to use whatever definition works for them, I don't see how Pat can assert this (in post #4).

For what it's worth, the meaning I personally have in mind is that used by Robert Hurst in The Art of Urban Cycling, pp 64-67. The key excerpts from that brilliant section follow:



Blame Versus
ResponsibilityThe word "blame" came to the English language by way of the Latin word blasphemare, meaning "to blaspheme". The Old English version of the verb "to blame" has a very negative connotation. It implied dishonesty. Blame had roughly the same meaning as malign or libel. Somewhere along the line, the definition of blame got all twisted up. Blame ceased to be a very bad thing and became quite respectable -- not a proud or useful moment in human history.

Today's Americans spray blame around in great shotgun blasts to see what they can hit and where it might stick. They aim it everywhere except where it might actually do some good. We would be better off reverting to the original meaning of the word.

The proliferation of blame is rather useless for urban cycling. Blame is what happens when it's already too late. Obsession with blame is good for insurance purposes but not so good for safety purposes. The urban cyclist should cast the twin concepts of blame and legal liability on the scrap heap and forget about them. Thinking in terms of blame while out on the road is a perfect example of self-fulling prophecy. Blame is dangerous.

The most effective way for a cyclist to stay out of trouble on city streets is to forget entirely about the possibility of blaming others, and to take on full responsibility for his or her own safety. This attitude will be fundamentally different from the prima donna mind-set displayed by many humans, drivers and cyclists among them, who put their safety in the hands of others, count on everything working out just right, and have a royal freak-out at the first sign of trouble. The successful urban cyclist counts on nothing but chaos and stupidity.

...

From now on -- 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. That is the meaning of true freedom. That is how we will keep such disasters from happening in the first place.

...

The urban cyclist's best chance is to gather all the responsibilty that can be gathered. Hoard it from those around you. Have faith that you will do a better job with it than they will, and make it so. Don't trust your fate to the police, the planners, the pedestrians, or the paramedics. Don't leave your fate to the stars, or to luck. Definitely don't leave your fate to the drivers.

Perhaps Robert's concept reflects a "very simplistic and naive concept of responsibility", but I, for one, find it to be extraordinarily practical with respect to cycling in traffic.

Robert is not mincing words, his meaning should be crystal clear to anyone. Read it again and again, until you really get it, take it to heart, and make it so.

i remember a public service campaign on TV when i was young -- "watch out for the other guy", telling motorists that prudence and due caution on the road would save not only their own lives, but someone else's. after all the years of driving, in all the different parts of the country and abroad, i came to the conclusion that this was one of the wisest points EVER issued to the public, ANYWHERE.

having said that, i am unable to be 100% responsible for my own safety on the road -- i can be as safe as a double condom, but one idiot on a cell phone or some other multitask can render all my efforts vain. we ALL have a reasonable expectation from our fellow road users to conduct their affairs with due caution. just because that idea is eroding under contemporary mores' does not mean it is invalid.

Luckily, my belief in the good book of EC will keep me safe. That, or the clowns in the weekend peloton riding cover will help keep some of us safe...

This poll assumes a very simplistic and naive concept of responsibility.

This poll assumes a very simplistic and naive concept of responsibility.

Is there any other?

This poll assumes a very simplistic and naive concept of responsibility.

That's a problem with polls not necessarily the design of this one. The only position left off of this poll would be the extreme opposite of "I accept full responsibility for my safety". Something like "Everyone else is responsible for keeping my cranium from splattering off of their bumper."

It only take a few moments observing traffic in eastern Mediterranean countries to see what it means to relinquish all responsibility for everyone elses safety.

How would you have done it?
Best regards,
James

I accept full responsibity, yet so do we all. Someone cuts us off and causes us to crash, that's none of our faults. It's the fault of the lawbreaker. Just as if we were within the confines of a car.

We share the road. We share the rights. We share the responsibilities.

Do you take total responsibility for your safety when cycling in traffic, or do you hold others at least partially responsible?
You left out the choice for "No, I'm completely irresponsible and ignore all rules, regulations and never even pay attention to where I'm going or what anyone else is doing. La-De-Dah"

Oh wait, the other two listed negative responses can substitute for the unavailable response in the HH analysis of the results.

As you were, please continue with the quest for truth.:rolleyes:

It takes a villiage to raise a child.

I think helmet head also left out HIS most common safety scenario

" I rely on a cadre of club riders to provide safety for my riding, because riding en masse is certainely safer than solo traffic cycling. Ride in traffic daily? what are you, nuts?"

This poll assumes a very simplistic and naive concept of responsibility. The poll assumes nothing about the concept of responsibility (polls don't assume, people do). You can speak for yourself, however, and obviously you have.

What I intended, however, has since been clarified in the OP.


Luckily, my belief in the good book of EC will keep me safe. That, or the clowns in the weekend peloton riding cover will help keep some of us safe... What does this have to do with EC?

As for weekend pelotons, the same attitude applies. Many newer club riders do not take full responsibility for their safety when riding in groups. They are easiest to identify as the ones who are usually involved in pileups. Those who take responsibility for their safety apply Robert's dictum to their group riding; that accept that "if some bastard breaks every [rule] in the book and [causes you to lose balance and fall] over in the process, it will be your fault and nobody else's." And they ride accordingly.


We share the road. We share the rights. We share the responsibilities. Got a mouse in your pocket? Who is this "We" that you think and speak for?

"The urban cyclist's best chance is to gather all the responsibilty that can be gathered. Hoard it from those around you. Have faith that you will do a better job with it than they will, and make it so. Don't trust your fate to the police, the planners, the pedestrians, or the paramedics. Don't leave your fate to the starts, or to luck. Definitely don't leave your fate to the drivers." --Robert Hurst (see OP).


Oh wait, the other two listed negative responses can substitute for the unavailable response in the HH analysis of the results.
Granted the third one is arguably bogus. But the second choice is a genuine attempt to reflect the views expressed by many on this forum, and the numbers who have selected it seems to indicate it is effective as such.

Edit: I didn't expect anyone to ever pick "No, motorists are more responsible for my safety than I am.". But I think it's presence is still useful, just to add clarity to the meaning on of the other two choices. This poll is really about the first 2 choices, and the voting is close.

Not to worry. My belief in the teachings of The Great One (John Forester) will protect me. I have read the Good Book; I know everything and I am invincible.

If I don't have an accident, the VC cultists will claim I was a vehicular cyclist. If I do have an accident, they'll say it was my own fault. That's their idea of scientific evidence that VC is safer.

I take responsibility for whatever I do. I do that, in part, by not putting too much faith in what I might read in a book or what some nutjob on an internet message board thinks.

What I intended, however, has since been clarified in the OP.
Way to go, dude. Change the original post, why don't ya.

You crack me up.

I accept full responsibity, yet so do we all. Someone cuts us off and causes us to crash, that's none of our faults. It's the fault of the lawbreaker. Just as if we were within the confines of a car.
"Blame is dangerous" -- Robert Hurst (see the OP)

I have slowed down in recent years. I am 40+ years old, and I no longer do "sprints", or try to do the speed limit of 30MPH.
When I look back throught the years, I recall that many times when I tried to go as fast as the traffic, motorists did not apreciate the effort I was making.
Funny, I no longer hear anyone shouting that I'm going too slow. I guess it's the perspective of the motorist. If I was going 27MPH, for example, I was in the center of the lane, blocking cars from behind. The motorist doesn't care that the speed limit is 30MPH, and maybe he can't do the math, but he should only be gaining on me at the 3 miles per hour difference.(30-27=3).
Okay, that was example 1, twenty years ago and I was a hundred pounds lighter.
Today I ride that same stretch of road at 18MPH. I can ride closer to the right edge of the road. I am going slower, but the motorist doesn't yell at me that I'm going too slow, because I'm not blocking the whole lane.

When a driver has a contention with a cyclist, It always seems to be a white male behind the wheel. I've noticed a change in the past twenty years, however. Today it always seems as if he's a teenager, whereas back then there were more "old farts" honking at bicycles. (Maybe the "old farts" who didn't believe in bicycling, died of heart attacks?)

Speed cycling is a paradox; If you pedal fast, you take up the same line as a motorcycle would, and you block cars from passing. The drivers have short tempers and they let you know it. If you pedal slow, you're at the rightmost usable part of the road, so they can pass.

Way to go, dude. Change the original post, why don't ya.

You crack me up.
I didn't change a single word of the original post. I simply added a few words of clarification, mostly a quote from Robert Hurst.

That use of responsibility, by the way, is consistent with everything else I've ever posted on this forum with respect to the topic taking responsibility for your safety.

I didn't change a single word of the original post. I simply added a few words of clarification, mostly a quote from Robert Hurst.

That use of responsibility, by the way, is consistent with everything else I've ever posted on this forum with respect to the topic taking responsibility for your safety.Whatever. Adding a bunch of stuff in an attempt to give something validity is not changing it.

You crack me up.

Whatever. Adding a bunch of stuff in an attempt to give something validity is not changing it.

You crack me up. Are you saying the issue raised by this poll does not have validity?

Do you take total responsibility for your safety when cycling in traffic, or do you hold others at least partially responsible?

EDIT:
Since I did not originally specify what I meant by responsibiilty, intentionally allowing each person to use whatever definition works for them, I don't see how Pat can assert this (in post #4).

For what it's worth, the meaning I personally have in mind is that used by Robert Hurst in The Art of Urban Cycling, pp 64-67. The key excerpts from that brilliant section follow:

Perhaps Robert's concept reflects a "very simplistic and naive concept of responsibility", but I, for one, find it to be extraordinarily practical with respect to cycling in traffic.

Robert is not mincing words, his meaning should be crystal clear to anyone. Read it again and again, until you really get it, take it to heart, and make it so.


I have no qualms with Hurst's definition and intention. What I do have a problem with is others that go out of their way to be a nuisance to me. Motorists that exhibit behaviour above and beyond the ordinary, simply because they encounter me, a cyclist. Those people ARE responsible for their actions and how their actions effect me.

Consider a chain reaction sequence of events... I am riding along, being perfectly legal... a motorist does something extraordinary in some manner to "bypass" me, I react to their extraordinary actions with an escape move, they then react to that move... I attempt a counter reaction; at some point the events spiral down to causing me harm. (mass verses mass). Motorists acting "ordinary" do not require this sort of parry and thrust.

Responsibility of reaction was held by me, but responsibility of normal action in the first place, was held by the motorist. Violation of that latter responsibilty is the problem about which I tend to rant. Motorists not acting in an ordinary manner. Be it power moves leading to potential right hooks, to objects thrown from windows, to threating and bumping. These are extraordinary actions that have no place on the roadway.

I have no qualms with Hurst's definition and intention. What I do have a problem with is others that go out of their way to be a nuisance to me. Motorists that exhibit behaviour above and beyond the ordinary, simply because they encounter me, a cyclist. Those people ARE responsible for their actions and how their actions effect me.

Consider a chain reaction sequence of events... I am riding along, being perfectly legal... a motorist does something extraordinary in some manner to "bypass" me, I react to their extraordinary actions with an escape move, they then react to that move... I attempt a counter reaction; at some point the events spiral down to causing me harm. (mass verses mass). Motorists acting "ordinary" do not require this sort of parry and thrust.

Responsibility of reaction was held by me, but responsibility of normal action in the first place, was held by the motorist. Violation of that latter responsibilty is the problem about which I tend to rant. Motorists not acting in an ordinary manner. Be it power moves leading to potential right hooks, to objects thrown from windows, to threating and bumping. These are extraordinary actions that have no place on the roadway. Read it again.

"From now on -- 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. That is the meaning of true freedom. That is how we will keep such disasters from happening in the first place." --Robert Hurst

"Blame is dangerous." --Robert Hurst

Think about it. Read Robert's words again. Read your words again. Do you see the conflict?

Those people ARE responsible for their actions and how their actions effect me.
"Those people" are clearly NOT responsible for their actions. You really need to understand that, and accept it.

And regardless of whether they are responsible for their actions or not, YOU are responsible for how they affect you and your safety.

"Hoard [responsibility] from those around you. Have faith that you will do a better job with it than they will, and make it so. Don't trust your fate to the police, the planners, the pedestrians, or the paramedics. Don't leave your fate to the stars, or to luck. Definitely don't leave your fate to the drivers." -- Robert Hurst

Edit: With all due respect, Gene, your posts, including the one above, do not exude the attitude of one who hoards responsibility from those around you. To the contrary, you seem all too eager to leave your fate in the hands of drivers. That's why their poor driving upsets you so much, and causes you so much angst. If you refused to leave your fate in their hands, their behavior would not concern you - beyond the point of simply being aware of it and what you must do as a result to be safe.

This has got to be the silliest poll yet. A person is only responsible for his/her own actions within the realm of what is within their own control. They are NOT responsible for the actions of things that are not within their control.

Hurst is attempting to make the point that a cyclist cannot expect others to act responsibly, especially in the context of YOUR best interests, so we must assume that they will not if we wish to minimize our risk. Planning for Murphy. You are taking his words, some totally out of context, in an effort to support your pet theory that the cyclist is always wrong and that motorists are not responsible for their own actions, which is why you've presented yet another rigged poll.

I hope Robert weighs in, because I believe that he will also take issue with how you are using his words.

Read it again.

"From now on -- 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. That is the meaning of true freedom. That is how we will keep such disasters from happening in the first place." --Robert Hurst

"Blame is dangerous." --Robert Hurst

Think about it. Read Robert's words again. Read your words again. Do you see the conflict?

Can't buy it. If someone came gunning for you and you did everything humanly possible to avoid a bullet and it hit you none the less, those pursuing you ARE responsible.

Hurst's point is to do everything you can, but it is a two way street out there, and those that go above and beyond the ordinary in attempts to violate my rights are responsible for their own actions.

Or to put it another way... according to you, Ken Kifer is responsible for the incident where a drunk driver took Ken's life.

Edit: With all due respect, Gene, your posts, including the one above, do not exude the attitude of one who hoards responsibility from those around you. To the contrary, you seem all too eager to leave your fate in the hands of drivers. That's why their poor driving upsets you so much, and causes you so much angst. If you refused to leave your fate in their hands, their behavior would not concern you - beyond the point of simply being aware of it and what you must do as a result to be safe.

Poor driving is one thing... arrogant stupid aggressive driving is another.

Poor drivers I can easily avoid, drivers that do anything and everything in violation of not only my safety, but theirs' are another thing altogether.

Well, yesterday I was passed by a huge greyhound-sized bus with only inches to spare. I could have reached out and touched the bus as it passed without extending my arm all the way. I conclude that it was my fault. Next time I will ride on the bike path where these things just don't happen.

This has got to be the silliest poll yet. A person is only responsible for his/her own actions within the realm of what is within their own control. They are NOT responsible for the actions of things that are not within their control.

Hurst is attempting to make the point that a cyclist cannot expect others to act responsibly, especially in the context of YOUR best interests, so we must assume that they will not if we wish to minimize our risk. Planning for Murphy. You are taking his words, some totally out of context, in an effort to support your pet theory that the cyclist is always wrong and that motorists are not responsible for their own actions, which is why you've presented yet another rigged poll.

I hope Robert weighs in, because I believe that he will also take issue with how you are using his words.
I too hope Robert weighs in.

I find it interesting that you accuse me of having a "pet theory that the cyclist is always wrong and that motorists are not responsible for their own actions" without being able to cite any posts supporting this claim. You know, perhaps if I said something like, "... 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." Oh wait, Robert said that. :rolleyes:

The context of my words has been consistent and very comparable to Robert's: Robert is addressing the reader of his book, I am addressing the readers of this forum. In his book Robert uses real-world and hypothetical examples to make his point about responsibility and attitude. In my posts here I use real-world and hypothetical examples to make the same point about responsibilty and attitude.

Because of some other things I have said, in particular my opposition to bike lanes, many people here just seem to be unable to interpret my words about anything else objectively. So they oppose it because I say it, or ask it. But if the same thing is said and meant by Robert Hurst, there is no argument. If nothing else, this thread certainly illustrates that.

Well, yesterday I was passed by a huge greyhound-sized bus with only inches to spare. I could have reached out and touched the bus as it passed without extending my arm all the way. I conclude that it was my fault. Next time I will ride on the bike path where these things just don't happen.
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...

With all due respect, Gene, your posts, including the one above, do not exude the attitude of one who hoards responsibility from those around you. To the contrary, you seem all too eager to leave your fate in the hands of drivers. That's why their poor driving upsets you so much, and causes you so much angst. If you refused to leave your fate in their hands, their behavior would not concern you - beyond the point of simply being aware of it and what you must do as a result to be safe.

Poor driving is one thing... arrogant stupid aggressive driving is another.

Poor drivers I can easily avoid, drivers that do anything and everything in violation of not only my safety, but theirs' are another thing altogether.
Whatever, now you're playing semantics. But I'm happy to revise it for you.


With all due respect, Gene, your posts, including the ones in this thread, do not exude the attitude of one who hoards responsibility from those around you. To the contrary, you seem all too eager to leave your fate in the hands of drivers. That's why their arrogant stupid aggressive driving upsets you so much, and causes you so much angst. If you refused to leave your fate in their hands, their behavior would not concern you - beyond the point of simply being aware of it and what you must do as a result to be safe.

I don't think I can expect such a large bus to see me. It was even larger than a greyhound, much taller. I'm sure there are all manner if this or that to try "next" time, but to ensure no more next times, the bike path is probably the best bet. I never ride in the street in that location anyway and only did it because the people I was with wanted to. Next time they can be my guest. I'll meet them at the end of the bike path.

Read it again.

"From now on -- 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. That is the meaning of true freedom. That is how we will keep such disasters from happening in the first place." --Robert Hurst

"Blame is dangerous." --Robert Hurst

Think about it. Read Robert's words again. Read your words again. Do you see the conflict?
Can't buy it.
Can't buy what? I didn't saying anything above, except to reread and think about Robert's words, and ask whether you see a conflict. The rest is all quotes from Robert. Are you now saying you can't buy what Robert is saying? Because earlier you said, "I have no qualms with Hurst's definition and intention." Which is it? "No qualms" or "can't buy it"?


If someone came gunning for you and you did everything humanly possible to avoid a bullet and it hit you none the less, those pursuing you ARE responsible. Whether they are or are not responsible is of no help to you if you're dead or maimed because of it.

Here's a portion from p. 65 I did not include in my excerpts in the OP:



Blame! Who will you blame after that [hypothetical example of someone gunning for you] floral delivery van runs a red light and pulversizes your internal organs? As you wheeze your last wheeze, will you find the breath to b!tch at the driver --- "nice driving, a$$hole!" Will you be planning your suit as you lurch around on the pavement like a trout?"


Hurst's point is to do everything you can, but ... Period. Hurst's point is to do everything you can, PERIOD. THERE IS NO BUT. THAT is his point. Robert, if you do show up in this thread and do nothing else but clear this up, that would be very helpful.


... but it is a two way street out there, and those that go above and beyond the ordinary in attempts to violate my rights are responsible for their own actions. Hurst's point, as I understand it, is that to the extent that may be true, it is irrelevant, useless, and in fact DANGEROUS (his words: "blame is dangerous") for the cyclist (like the readers of his book and the readers of this forum) to think about it, much less be obsessed by it.


Or to put it another way... according to you, Ken Kifer is responsible for the incident where a drunk driver took Ken's life. "Smart cyclists, for whom the stakes are inordinately high due to their notable lack of protective sheet metal, have little use for the simplistic system of classifying accidents and assigning blame after the fact." Ibid, p. 66

No. Kifer was responsible for his safety prior to the incident. He is not responsible for the behavior of others. He was responsible for doing everything he could to avoid being crashed into. He is as responsible as is someone climbing Everest who dies from some kind of freak accident where he did nothing wrong, even if it involves the behavior of someone who made a poor choice because of being oxygen depleted. There are known risks with all activities. When you climb Everest, one of those risks is that people around you, people whose behavior may threaten your safety, are at their physical, mental and emotional limits. If you die as a result, it's your responsibilty, since you chose to climb Everest knowing that's a risk. When we choose to bicycle, drive or walk on or near the streets, we know that there are drunk drivers out there. It is our responsibility to do everything we can to avoid falling victim, and sometimes that's not good enough. But our safety is still fully our responsibility.

So, we wear helmets and support MADD and mourn the loss of Ken Kifer and countless others, but our safety is still fully our responsibilty. In fact, that's WHY we wear helmets and support MADD and mourn the loss of Ken Kifer and countless others.

I don't think I can expect such a large bus to see me. It was even larger than a greyhound, much taller.

Well, buses, of course, can't see anything. Their drivers, however, usually can. Adequate vision is a generally-accepted requirement for issuance of commercial driving licenses.

Given that such is the case, why wouldn't you expect the operator of a vehicle approaching from behind, of whatever size, to see you in the roadway ahead of her (assuming, of course, that you were appropriately visible, positioned in a way to communicate that you were occupying the lane, etc.)?

I would think that, if bus drivers couldn't see smaller, slower objects in front of them, they'd run into and over cars, pedestrians, cyclists, etc. much more often than they actually do.

I don't think I can expect such a large bus to see me. It was even larger than a greyhound, much taller. I'm sure there are all manner if this or that to try "next" time, but to ensure no more next times, the bike path is probably the best bet. I never ride in the street in that location anyway and only did it because the people I was with wanted to. Next time they can be my guest. I'll meet them at the end of the bike path. What does the size of the vehicle being driven have to do with the ability of that driver to be able to see you?

If nothing else, a bus driver is higher than other drivers and has a much better perpective on the road in front of him, and is more likely to see you than, say, is a short driver in a low-to-the-ground sports car where they have difficulty seeing over the dash...

And like I'm going to ride at 12mph in the center of the lane on a 40mph road in heavy traffic. Get real. Even the Head himself pulls over for faster traffic. It was there in abundance yesterday.

There also was no bike lane. I would not have has this problem if there had been a bike lane. And since I know the area and know it's a problem area, I already had a solution -- the bike path -- which I did not use that day. So I am only to blame for not using a proven solution to this problem area -- the bike path.

I do think the bus did it on purpose, though, because he would have had to have seen me before he passed me. I really had that gut feeling he did it on purpose. The motorists were angry yesterday because traffic into Santa Barbara was stopped up for miles and miles. It was a day of observing lots of stupid motorist behavior, not all of it directed at me.

Well, buses, of course, can't see anything. I think the post from sbhikes above really illustrates well why this is not just nitpicking.

When a cyclist uses anthropormorphic language to describe who and what he or she is dealing with in traffic, it indicates that he or she might actually be anthropormorphizing the vehicles in his or her mind.

And like I'm going to ride at 12mph in the center of the lane on a 40mph road in heavy traffic. Get real. Even the Head himself pulls over for faster traffic. It was there in abundance yesterday. Not if there was another lane available to pass me, and/or the right most lane is too narrow to be safely shared. What is the road this was on and the nearest cross street, so we could check out on google?


There also was no bike lane. I would not have has this problem if there had been a bike lane. And since I know the area and know it's a problem area, I already had a solution -- the bike path -- which I did not use that day. So I am only to blame for not using a proven solution to this problem area -- the bike path. Sounds like there was no room to share the lane with a bus, but you tried to share anyway, inviting the bus driver to try to squeeze the bus in.



I do think the bus did it on purpose, though, because he would have had to have seen me before he passed me. I really had that gut feeling he did it on purpose. The motorists were angry yesterday because traffic into Santa Barbara was stopped up for miles and miles. It was a day of observing lots of stupid motorist behavior, not all of it directed at me. Buses do nothing, much less do something on purpose. Of course the bus driver did it on purpose. By keeping far right and leaving the rest of the lane open to him and his bus, you invited him to do it.

I don't think I can expect such a large bus to see me. It was even larger than a greyhound, much taller.


I do think the bus did it on purpose, though, because he would have had to have seen me before he passed me.

It's not going to be easy to engage in a rational discussion of this incident.

"... 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." Oh wait, Robert said that.

Now how about including the full context of that statement?

Why should I post cites concenring your 'cyclist is always wrong' theory - one just has to check any thread concerning a cyclist who is killed or injured and it's pretty obvious. :rolleyes:

Well, buses, of course, can't see anything. Their drivers, however, usually can.



Buses do nothing, much less do something on purpose. Of course the bus driver did it on purpose.
Kalliergo, fess up. You must be a certified LCI (League Cycling Instructor or better yet, an ECI). I've never known anyone on the Internet but characters of that stripe who make a point of grammatical nit picking over the very common assignment of anthropomorphic behavior to vehicles, rather than the human driver.

HH, we already know the story on him.

Now how about including the full context of that statement?

Why should I post cites concenring your 'cyclist is always wrong' theory - one just has to check any thread concerning a cyclist who is killed or injured and it's pretty obvious. :rolleyes: The full context is mostly covered in the OP, plus the details of the incident Robert and I have discussed at length, where a motorist backed out of a blind alley right into the path of a cyclist.

But regardless of the context surrounding the statement, the words speak for themselves:

"... 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."

The context is: some bastard breaks every law in the book and runs you over in the process

In that context, Robert says: it will be your fault and nobody else's.

How much clearer can the guy be?

Period. Hurst's point is to do everything you can, PERIOD. THERE IS NO BUT. THAT is his point.
Oh, well then I don't really need to go to class today. I'll just lock my door and stay safe in my bedroom.

This thread is verbosely pointing out the difference between right and dead right. The laws of physics have precedence over the laws of the state.

I am responsible for keeping myself safe. Others are responsible for not putting me in danger. How does someone answering the first poll option behave differently than me?

The full context is mostly covered in the OP, plus the details of the incident Robert and I have discussed at length, where a motorist backed out of a blind alley right into the path of a cyclist.

But regardless of the context surrounding the statement, the words speak for themselves:

"... 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."

The context is: some bastard breaks every law in the book and runs you over in the process

In that context, Robert says: it will be your fault and nobody else's.

How much clearer can the guy be?

Talk about a freaking con artist. Include the complete context surrounding the quoted text - or I will.

I voted other.

It's the government's repsonsibility. They're the blame for everything else that happens and pass laws to that reflect that.

Nobody, everybody. it's all the same.

"Blame is dangerous" -- Robert Hurst (see the OP)
We are responsible for all our actions. Yet, someone breaks the law and kills a cyclist. Is that not called manslaughter.

We are responsible for all our actions. Yet, someone breaks the law and kills a cyclist. Is that not called manslaughter.

yeah it is. unless the cyclist also broke the law.

Yes, the bus driver may not have seen me. It is only a suspicion on my part that he did see me and nearly ran me over on purpose. If my suspicion is wrong, then maybe I can't expect them to be able to see me way down here.

Yeah HH you're absolutely right, it's all my responsibility, whatever happens is all on me. Thanks for shining the VC light of truth and justice over me, I will now go down to the bank and open an account. I will save up as much as I can so when I get mowed down by a teenager text messaging or a junkie smashed out of his head on crack my widow can pay for all the repairs to their car and compensate them for the inconvenience, I will accept full responsibility for everything because I am wholly and solely responsible for anything and everything that happens irrespective of how much (if any) control I had over every single variable.

Yeah HH you're absolutely right, it's all my responsibility, whatever happens is all on me. Thanks for shining the VC light of truth and justice over me, I will now go down to the bank and open an account. I will save up as much as I can so when I get mowed down by a teenager text messaging or a junkie smashed out of his head on crack my widow can pay for all the repairs to their car and compensate them for the inconvenience, I will accept full responsibility for everything because I am wholly and solely responsible for anything and everything that happens irrespective of how much (if any) control I had over every single variable.

Thats right you should have known that the teenager was text messaging and the junkie was on crack and impaired by using VC. You are responsible for being on the road, etc...

Yes, the bus driver may not have seen me. It is only a suspicion on my part that he did see me and nearly ran me over on purpose. If my suspicion is wrong, then maybe I can't expect them to be able to see me way down here.


Diane, this just doesn't make sense to me.

Drivers of all sorts of vehicles routinely see and avoid much smaller objects than an adult cyclist on a 'bent trike. It seems to me that, if you place yourself in the roadway where drivers are looking for other traffic, obstacles, etc., and if you are reasonably visually conspicuous, drivers will almost always see you. Not always, of course, but with very few exceptions.

Even in the instance under discussion, my best educated guess would be that the bus driver did see you. Unfortunately, s/he decided to pass you too closely. Many years of experience, the findings of others who have similar experience and have considered the matter seriously, indeed, everything I know about street cycling tells me that riding too far to the right (in lanes too narrow to be safely shared) invites this close passing.

Do you actually disagree?