I think that even for you, that is an outrageous claim.

In the three accidents that my immediate family have been involved in the driver was not complicit, per the accident investigations carried out by the police. The police are interested in whether someone is legally complicit - whether they were legally responsible for the crash in anyway. Just because you're cleared by the police does not necessarily mean you were following defensive driving best practices. If you weren't, that is the sense in which I mean you are complicit.

Now, don't get mad at me... you asked, and these are all excellent examples of exactly what I'm talking about. Keep this in mind:


if some ******* 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.
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=276467

1) Two lane highway, stacked traffic, snowing. Drunk guy (suspended DL, no insurance, illegal) comes alongside and proceeds to change lanes as if I'm not there. How was I complicit?You say traffic is stacked... that implies you both had cars in front of you, yes? Standard defensive driving best practices are to back off/slow down as soon as someone is next to you in your blind spot or vice versa. You didn't.

2) City street, two lanes of traffic in the same direction, 15 mph. The 82 year old man in the right lane, whose front bumper is three feet in front of mine, sees a diagonal parking spot open on the left side of the road and tries to turn into it, through my front bumper. How was I complicit? You were driving in his blind spot.

3) My wife was in a left turn lane waiting for the signal to change. When she got her signal she was half way through the intersection when a guy (no insurance) blew through the red light and broadsided her. How was she complicit? Defensive drivers are not surprised by red light runners, they expect them. She didn't. She proceeded without making sure there were no red light runners coming.

Chip, please stop being so argumentative.

Are you seriously saying only an insurance investigator could say whether or not "someone hit by someone else" necessarily implies that he did nothing wrong?

Are you disagreeing with my point? If so, how? If not, why are you being argumentative? Is that good for the forum?

Just implicating you of being complicit in attempted knowing everything better than everyone else. :lol:

I believe that in all but some very rare collisions, all drivers involved are complicit to some degree.

What, aren't motorists too responsible for their individual safety? :rolleyes:
Of course. Unfortunately, many, like Peter F, do not choose to take full responsibility for anything that happens to them while driving.

3) My wife was in a left turn lane waiting for the signal to change. When she got her signal she was half way through the intersection when a guy (no insurance) blew through the red light and broadsided her. How was she complicit?

Defensive drivers are not surprised by red light runners, they expect them. She didn't. She proceeded without making sure there were no red light runners coming.

So that made her complicit? How complicit was she? Should Pete hire a private eye to follow her, in case there is more than just complicity...but maybe even a conspiracy?

Just implicating you of being complicit in attempted knowing everything better than everyone else. :lol:
When I say something about as obvious as "a water molecule is composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom", how is that an example "attempted knowing everything better than everyone else?"

Give me a break.

So that made her complicit? How complicit was she? Should Pete hire a private eye to follow her, in case there is more than just complicity...but maybe even a conspiracy? If you use standard defensive driving practices as the standard, and interpret not following those best practices as "wrongdoing", then she was involved in "wrongdoing" that contributed to the crash occuring. That's being complicit, by definition, in the way that I am and have been using the term for the last 20 posts or so.

Edit: Now, are you going to agree with my point, argue with it substantively, or continue with the semantic nonsense about the meaning of "complicit"?

I've already taken HH's insurance quiz.

http://bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=3804905#post3804905

To his credit, he didn't claim it was my responsibility when someone backed into my car while it was legally parked, however, apparently, the jury is still out on why I failed to avoid that guy who plowed in the back of me at speed while I was stopped in a traffic jam...

Now, don't get mad at me... you asked, and these are all excellent examples of exactly what I'm talking about. Keep this in mind:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=276467

You say traffic is stacked... that implies you both had cars in front of you, yes? Standard defensive driving best practices are to back off/slow down as soon as someone is next to you in your blind spot or vice versa. You didn't.

You were driving in his blind spot.

Defensive drivers are not surprised by red light runners, they expect them. She didn't. She proceeded without making sure there were no red light runners coming.


The drunk was next to him, not in his blind spot. That's why they check peripheral vision at the DMV. A car next to you is not in a blind spot. The second accident also involves not being in a persons blind spot. A car with the bumpers only three feet apart are still next to each other. If somemone hits a car like that, then they just didn't look, period.

In the third accident, are you the guy that slows from 45 to 10 mph in front of me at every green light?

If you use standard defensive driving practices as the standard, and interpret not following those best practices as "wrongdoing", then she was involved in "wrongdoing" that contributed to the crash occuring. That's being complicit, by definition, in the way that I am and have been using the term for the last 20 posts or so.

Edit: Now, are you going to agree with my point, argue with it substantively, or continue with the semantic nonsense about the meaning of "complicit"?

Ahh, the way YOU have been using the term, which of course means it's perfectly understandable to everyone who prefers to use it as the English language intended it and not versed in whatever language you happen to speak. Perhaps if you'd post a thesaurus of terms and how they are used in your language, some of us might overcome our reading comprehension problems and our inability decipher your butchering of English.

My point has already been made...you can't stand for someone else to express an opinion based on their own experience and education without chiming in concerning how they are wrong, as per your own vast experience in - nothing.

* DRIVER INATTENTION 22.7%
* VEHICLE SPEED 18.7%
* ALCOHOL IMPAIRMENT 18.2%
* PERCEPTUAL ERRORS (e.g. looked, but didn’t see) 15.1% How is looking but not seeing NOT inattention?
* DECISION ERRORS (e.g. turned with obstructed view) 10.1% How is turning when you cannot see what is coming NOT inattention?
* INCAPACITATION (e.g. fell asleep) 6.4%

It looks to me that(assuming these numbers are correct) driver inattention should be 47.9 % at the least. The numbers for incapacitation should really also be included because you are not paying attention if you are so drowsy you fall asleep.

"Inattention" is a PC term for "stupid"

What proof can you offer that I do not choose to take full responsibility for anything that happens to me while driving?

You either take full responsibilityfor anything that happens to you while driving , or you do not. You, Mr. "Not Complicit", obviously, do not.

Proof:

HE failed to check the lane before cutting across it. We had just left a stop sign where we had been side-by-side. How do you imagine traffic to flow on streets if a driver should never occupy another driver's blind spot? [I am] Not complicit.
Are you taking full responsiblity for what happened to you here, or are you blaming someone else for what happened to you? Sounds to me like you're blaming someone else when you say, "HE failed to ...".

"Thinking in terms of blame while out on the road is a perfect example of self-fulling prophecy. Blame is dangerous." - Robert Hurst, http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=276467

Now, are you going to agree with my point, argue with it substantively, or continue with the semantic nonsense about the meaning of "complicit"?
Ahh, the way YOU have been using the term, which of course means it's perfectly understandable to everyone who prefers to use it as the English language intended it and not versed in whatever language you happen to speak. Perhaps if you'd post a thesaurus of terms and how they are used in your language, some of us might overcome our reading comprehension problems and our inability decipher your butchering of English.
As usual, you pick semantic nonsense. :rolleyes:

My point has already been made...you can't stand for someone else to express an opinion based on their own experience and education without chiming in concerning how they are wrong, as per your own vast experience in - nothing. That's not a point, that your (wrong) opinion (and, yes, I am the expert on the subject of what I can or can't stand, not you). And it's certainly not a substantive response to any point I've made.

I was walking along the beach earlier today, and a gull dropped a major poop on my head.
I take full responsibility for it, because if I was not there, doing everyhting right, then the bird would not have pooped on my head.
It's sad that this statement can possibly hold true.

I am just glad we all found something else to argue about since the new sub-forum has been created. Even if it is an argument about driving a car :p

I am just glad we all found something else to argue about since the new sub-forum has been created. Even if it is an argument about driving a car :p
or pooping gulls

No matter the word(s) he uses I agree with HH that people not legally at fault in a collision often times (but not always) partially contributed to it in some way, or at least were not diligent enough to avoid it. There's no other way to explain the fact that some people can go years, even decades, without a collision while others have many that "weren't their fault".

As a teen I was involved in two collisions while driving, neither of which were considered my fault. Looking back I can easily see that had I been more alert and done the right thing, I could have prevented both. Since that time I have not been in any collisions (or received any citations) for over 25 years.

No matter the word(s) he uses I agree with HH that people not legally at fault in a collision often times (but not always) partially contributed to it in some way, or at least were not diligent enough to avoid it. There's no other way to explain the fact that some people can go years, even decades, without a collision while others have many that "weren't their fault".

As a teen I was involved in two collisions while driving, neither of which were considered my fault. Looking back I can easily see that had I been more alert and done the right thing, I could have prevented both. Since that time I have not been in any collisions (or received any citations) for over 25 years.

Yeah, I get where you are coming from. Contributory neglegence is the phrase that best describes this. But can we clearly call it fault if one person is doing EVERYTHING to the letter of the law, and then some? Maybe, I guess. I wouldn't.
Oh, my wife has never been in a car accident, and she drives like mad I tell you!! Maybe it's luck, but if anyone deserves to be in an incident it's her ;)

The drunk was next to him, not in his blind spot. That's why they check peripheral vision at the DMV. A car next to you is not in a blind spot. The second accident also involves not being in a persons blind spot. A car with the bumpers only three feet apart are still next to each other. If somemone hits a car like that, then they just didn't look, period.
You're right, neither was a "blind spot" situation, but they were side-by-side situations that you're supposed to avoid according to defensive driving best practices. See 6d here (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/vehindustry/ol/drvedcur.htm):


6. Vehicle position
a. Keep up with traffic speed while remaining within legal limits
b. Avoid other drivers’ blind spots
c. Avoid letting another driver drive in your blind spot
d. Avoid side-by-side driving
e. Avoid driving in bunches or packs
Note that Pete wrote: "We had just left a stop sign where we had been side-by-side. How do you imagine traffic to flow on streets if a driver should never occupy another driver's blind spot?" The side-by-side situation was something that should have been avoided (by speeding up or slowing down relative to the guy next to him) in both cases. At the stop, if they both left at the same moment, he should have slowed to let him go ahead where he could watch him, of, if safe, accelerate to be ahead of him. There is no excuse to still be side-by-side more than a couple car lengths after the stop.

In the third accident, are you the guy that slows from 45 to 10 mph in front of me at every green light? If that's what it takes to verify no one is running the red, yes, but it is rarely required. I do take my foot off the gas and look both ways when crossing an intersection on a green.


Here's how to lessen your risks. First, as you approach an intersection on a green light, slow down before entering it and make sure to look left-right-left; look left first, look left twice, because the first danger to you is the traffic approaching from your left. If the intersection is a "blind" one - where you can't see the traffic on the cross street until they (or you) are so close as to be an immediate hazard, slow down even more. Do not enter an intersection you have not visually cleared. Some drivers "cover" the brake by moving their foot for a few seconds from the accelerator to a position just above the brake pedal, which helps eliminate the reaction time needed to begin braking.

The majority of collisions at controlled intersections happen within 4 seconds of a light change. You don't want to be in the intersection during that 4 seconds. However, if you don't immediately go when the light turns green, people behind you get irritable, yes? Try this… The first thing is make sure you stopped in the right spot. Stop far enough behind the stop line that you can see it on the pavement in front of your car - this normally gives you 10-15 feet of space. When the light turns green, take your foot off the brake and let your vehicle start to creep toward the crosswalk (easy to do with an automatic transmission).

http://www.roadtripamerica.com/DefensiveDriving/Rule20.htm

These are all well-known and predictable situations, and defensive driving rules are designed to avoid getting into them, and many others where most drivers would consider themselves to be "not complicit".

HH, heh
You took the time to look all that up... interesting.
Using your idea of blame here, answer this. there is no wrong answer, I'm just curious of your reply:
Doing as you said, I approach an intersection, cover the brake, see someone running their red light and about to side swipe me. I slam on my brake to avoid the collision. the guy behind me, does not see this, and rearends me.
and I to blame?

US speeding tickets are dirt cheap. Especially for the rich. At under $200, they are of little consequence. That is the irony of the rich fighting them. Tickets should be issued on a sliding fine scale-- based on a combination of income and assets--- or .5% to 1% of gross annual income.

Here in Norway an avg. ticket costs over $400 for speeding. There is a much higher compliance--- whereas I was nabbed in Germany by a camera and only paid €25.

The trouble in the US is that no one feels like they should pay a ticket because enforcement is so arbitrary--- it feels more like bad luck when you get nabbed ("everyone else is speeding.")

US speeding tickets are dirt cheap. Especially for the rich. At under $200, they are of little consequence. That is the irony of the rich fighting them. Tickets should be issued on a sliding fine scale-- based on a combination of income and assets--- or .5% to 1% of gross annual income.

Here in Norway an avg. ticket costs over $400 for speeding. There is a much higher compliance--- whereas I was nabbed in Germany by a camera and only paid €25.

The trouble in the US is that no one feels like they should pay a ticket because enforcement is so arbitrary--- it feels more like bad luck when you get nabbed ("everyone else is speeding.")

Sounds good to me!

The reason people fight them is to keep it off their record, which would increase their insurance premiums more than the cost of the ticket.

US speeding tickets are dirt cheap. Especially for the rich. At under $200, they are of little consequence. That is the irony of the rich fighting them. Tickets should be issued on a sliding fine scale-- based on a combination of income and assets--- or .5% to 1% of gross annual income.

Here in Norway an avg. ticket costs over $400 for speeding. There is a much higher compliance--- whereas I was nabbed in Germany by a camera and only paid €25.

The trouble in the US is that no one feels like they should pay a ticket because enforcement is so arbitrary--- it feels more like bad luck when you get nabbed ("everyone else is speeding.")

Sadly, this is spot on.

or pooping gulls

haha, you said poop :)

You must live in an absolutely bizarre world if you believe that people should take full responsibility for anything(actually a more precise term would be everything) that happens to them when driving. That "bizarre world" is known as the normal world by the defensive driver, defensive vehicular cyclist and the defensive urban cyclist (see Hurst's chapter on "Blame vs. Responsibility", heavily excerpted in the OP of this thread (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=276467), and some more in some follow-up posts of that thread).

Sitting at a stop light, rear ended by Joe Blow. Yup, I take full responsibility for that!
Driving along minding my own business, Donnie Drunk blasts out of a side street and T bones me. Yup, I take full responsibility for that!

Brilliant! Defensive driving and cycling is primarily about attitude. Arguably, it has an element of denial in it, the denial of the possibility of a collision happening over which the driver/cyclist has no control/ability to avoid, if you pay enough attention and properly prepare. That state of denial is what motivates one to behave as defensively as is humanly possible. The alternative, as Hurst says, is dangerous:"Thinking in terms of blame while out on the road is a perfect example of self-fulling prophecy. Blame is dangerous. ... if some ******* 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 [denial] is how we will keep such disasters from happening in the first place." Hurst does not use the term "denial", but that is clearly the underlying concept: whether it's true or not that you have the control/ability to avoid all crashes, if you believe it's true then you are much more likely to be able to actually avoid crashes than if you believe your safety is vulnerable to the actions of others over which you have no control. Whichever you believe has a tendency to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Edit: In a sense, defensive driving is mostly about an attitude whose effect is very similar to the placebo effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo).

I have no responsibility for what the inattentive old man did so of course I don't take full responsibility, let alone partial responsibility, for his actions. Only an idiot would assume full responsibility for the improper and unavoidable acts of another. You're still missing the point, the essence of defensive driving/cycling, but we're getting closer. Nobody is suggesting that you take any responsibilty for the actions of others. It's about taking full responsibilty for your own actions, and inactions, and anything (that is the correct term) that happens to you.

The first step in defensive driving/cycling is to acknowledge and accept that the behavior of others is a threat to you. That's a given. None-the-less, you accept full responsibility to avoid crashes with them, no matter what they do. Again I refer to Hurst: "if some ******* breaks every law in the book and runs you over in the process, it will be your fault and nobody else's."

I like analogies. They rarely seem to work on this forum, but I'll try with you. Remember the guy hiking in the Arizona desert a few years ago who fell and got pinned by a boulder that rolled onto his arm? He had to cut off the lower part of his arm to get out. And he did. That guy took full responsibility for anything that happened to him. He did not blame the boulder that rolled when he stepped on it, caused him to fall, and then rolled onto his arm. Defensive driving/cycling is about thinking that other drivers are like boulders with respect to how much responsibility they have in terms of anything that happens to you. Again I cite Hurst:


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.
Don't just skim that. Read it again. What does it mean to you?

I do take full responsibility for some things that happen to me when driving, which is quite different than "Unfortunately, many, like Peter F, do not choose to take full responsibility for anything that happens to them while driving"
No, as long as there some things that happen to you for which you do not take full responsibility, then it is not true that you take full responsibility for anything that happens to you. Like I said before, either you take full responsibility for anything that happens to you, or you do not. You, Mr. "not complicit", do not. Anway, let's leave the semantic arguments to Chipcom, shall we? I'm using Hurst's words, and I believe they're correct English. Even if they're not, we both understand what is meant. We're talking about the difference between taking full responsibilty for anything that happens, vs. taking responsibility for only some things, and blaming others for some things.

If you're on vacation and someone breaks into your house and steals your Snoopy figurine collection, would you take full responsibility or would you blame the thief? Privately, I would take full responsibilty (I should have had better locks, better alarm system, a house sitter, etc.). Thieves are predictable, like red light runners, drunk drivers, and loose boulders. Blaming the thief is like blaming the boulder. There is no point.

It's a valid semantic issue though when you, Mr. Head, are the only one using your pet definition, which is at odds with common, defined even, usage.

You have a distinct ability to misuse words, in a spectacular fashion.
Perhaps. Note that you're also having an "anything" semantic issue with something else I said, but those are words from someone else, Robert Hurst.

If you look back at the sentence in which I used the term, in post #115, I wrote: "I'm sure people who are rear-ended sometimes truly did nothing wrong, but often they are complicit. "

In that context, is it really not clear what I meant? Is it not obvious that I meant, "I'm sure people who are rear-ended sometimes truly did nothing wrong, but often they did do something wrong [that contributed to the rear-ending]". What else could "complicit" mean in that context other than "did something wrong that contributed to the bad thing happening"? How could you interpret it any other way?

I was walking along the beach earlier today, and a gull dropped a major poop on my head.
I take full responsibility for it, because if I was not there, doing everyhting right, then the bird would not have pooped on my head.
It's sad that this statement can possibly hold true.
It's sad that you think taking full responsibility for it means the bird would have not pooped on your head if you had done everything right.

What it does mean is you don't blame a seagull for taking a sh!t, and you might consider wearing a cheap hat next time you go to the beach, if it bugs you that much.

No matter the word(s) he uses I agree with HH that people not legally at fault in a collision often times (but not always) partially contributed to it in some way, or at least were not diligent enough to avoid it. There's no other way to explain the fact that some people can go years, even decades, without a collision while others have many that "weren't their fault".

As a teen I was involved in two collisions while driving, neither of which were considered my fault. Looking back I can easily see that had I been more alert and done the right thing, I could have prevented both. Since that time I have not been in any collisions (or received any citations) for over 25 years.
:beer:

This is my point.

It's sad that you think taking full responsibility for it means the bird would have not pooped on your head if you had done everything right.
Ummm, link (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=42879&dict=CALD)

HH, heh
You took the time to look all that up... interesting.
Using your idea of blame here, answer this. there is no wrong answer, I'm just curious of your reply:
Doing as you said, I approach an intersection, cover the brake, see someone running their red light and about to side swipe me. I slam on my brake to avoid the collision. the guy behind me, does not see this, and rearends me.
and I to blame? Yes. You know you're approaching an intersection long before you reach it. If you have to slam on your brake to avoid a collision, you're still going too fast.

Driving/cycling when you hold others partially responsible for your safety is relatively easy. Defensive driving/cycling, where you take full responsibility for anything that happens to you, is considerably more difficult.

If the guy behind you hits you, you should have handled him earlier:


Rule 27: Get Rid of Tailgaters (http://www.roadtripamerica.com/DefensiveDriving/Rule27.htm)

What about when YOU are being tailgated? This is a dangerous situation for you as well. It is important to get the guy behind you "off your back." Here are some things to keep in mind.

First, when someone is tailgating you, add their following distance to yours. Simply put, follow the vehicle ahead of you no closer than 4 seconds (2+2=4) so that if you have to react, you've got the extra time and space to slow or stop without the tailgater hitting you. You've got to add his reaction time to yours, because you need the extra space.

Second, the best thing to do is get the tailgater safely around you. Do this by slowing slightly below the normal flow of traffic speed. This allows him more room to pass, and your slower speed makes it easier for him to do so. This is what you WANT. Think about the frame of mind of someone that is tailgating you. If not at first, very soon the tailgater gets impatient, frustrated, and maybe angry. Do you want him behind you, where you have no control over his actions? Tailgaters typically exercise poor judgment and endanger you and others trying to pass when it is not safe. If they still cannot pass after you've slowed a bit, then change lanes or pull off to the side and let them go by. For all of my testosterone-laden brothers out there, just let it go. Your lives are worth more than your egos.

Edit: Added quote box above to make it clear this is all stuff I'm citing. Click on the red above for the link.


(http://www.roadtripamerica.com/DefensiveDriving/Rule27.htm)

Note that Pete wrote: "We had just left a stop sign where we had been side-by-side. How do you imagine traffic to flow on streets if a driver should never occupy another driver's blind spot?"

What I note is that you avoided this questions, as you are want to do when answering questions would illustrate how absurd your claims are.
I did not intentionally avoid this question (or any other question). I thought it was rhetorical and you did not actually expect a response. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Occupying a blind spot or side-by-side position momentarily as one is passing another is impossible to avoid of course, but also not problematic if you're paying attention. Occupying a blind spot or side-by-side position for more than a moment is something else again.

I'm beginning to wonder if you actually drive on the same planet that I do. (I drive on Earth, BTW). How I drive is irrelevant. My argument is based on standard terrestrial defensive driving rules and the words of urban cyclist Robert Hurst. I happen to agree with them, but that's really beside the point.

I did not intentionally avoid this question (or any other question). I thought it was rhetorical and you did not actually expect a response. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Occupying a blind spot or side-by-side position momentarily as one is passing another is impossible to avoid of course, but also not problematic if you're paying attention. Occupying a blind spot or side-by-side position for more than a moment is something else again.

How I drive is irrelevant. My argument is based on standard terrestrial defensive driving rules and the words of urban cyclist Robert Hurst. I happen to agree with them, but that's really beside the point.
Dang, HH, here I am all ready to pick a fight (unrelated issues!) and you're doing reasonable posts!:eek: ;) :D

It's sad that you think taking full responsibility for it means the bird would have not pooped on your head if you had done everything right.

Ummm, link (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=42879&dict=CALD)
What makes a joke funny is that it has an element of truth in it. So if you really thought your "joke" was funny, then you must have believed that there was an element of truth to the interpretation that your joke was based on. That's what is sad.

Yes. You know you're approaching an intersection long before you reach it. If you have to slam on your brake to avoid a collision, you're still going too fast.

Driving/cycling when you hold others partially responsible for your safety is relatively easy. Defensive driving/cycling, where you take full responsibility for anything that happens to you, is considerably more difficult.

If the guy behind you hits you, you should have handled him earlier:

What about when YOU are being tailgated?

Are you making a statement here or asking me what I would do if I were being tailgated?

If you are not asking me to answer this then disregard my answer.
Personally, I would not do what you are stating below, for several reasons.Tthe main reason being, that if the agressor is behind me, then he can not cause me any more grief than he could if he were in front of me. Behind me, I have more control over the situation. In front of me, my actions are from then on, dictated by his. It's not a macho thing, nor is it a testosterone laden control issue. It is a fact. The only harm he can do behind me is to hit me from the rear or pull out a gun and start shooting, and what are the chances of that happening? In front of me, I am then opening myself up for all sorts of brake checking and other ignorant things road ragers do.
I would not pull off to the side of the road. for one, he might take that as an invite for a round of fisticuffs, of which he'd lose I assure you. And second, I refuse to give up my "rights" to someone who is agressive towards me. It is once again, not a macho issue, nor something fueled by testosterone, it is me standing up for my rights as a road user.
Tell me sir, would you do the same to someone being agressive to you while on your bike? You are riding in traffic, and someone behind you starts honking, or people are buzzing you, or insert problem here. Do you tuck tail and pull off the road and let them pass? Or has all your talk about "taking the lane" and being "more assertive" been nothing but hollowness?
Please, answer that. After all your talk about controlling traffic and other VC practices, do you give in to every single motorist out there that starts acting agressive?


First, when someone is tailgating you, add their following distance to yours. Simply put, follow the vehicle ahead of you no closer than 4 seconds (2+2=4) so that if you have to react, you've got the extra time and space to slow or stop without the tailgater hitting you. You've got to add his reaction time to yours, because you need the extra space.

Second, the best thing to do is get the tailgater safely around you. Do this by slowing slightly below the normal flow of traffic speed. This allows him more room to pass, and your slower speed makes it easier for him to do so. This is what you WANT. Think about the frame of mind of someone that is tailgating you. If not at first, very soon the tailgater gets impatient, frustrated, and maybe angry. Do you want him behind you, where you have no control over his actions? Tailgaters typically exercise poor judgment and endanger you and others trying to pass when it is not safe. If they still cannot pass after you've slowed a bit, then change lanes or pull off to the side and let them go by. For all of my testosterone-laden brothers out there, just let it go. Your lives are worth more than your egos.


Rule 27: Get Rid of Tailgaters (http://www.roadtripamerica.com/DefensiveDriving/Rule27.htm)

What makes a joke funny is that it has an element of truth in it. So if you really thought your "joke" was funny, then you must have believed that there was an element of truth to the interpretation that your joke was based on. That's what is sad.
I thought the joke about Saint Peter chaining ugly men to beautiful women in the "Jokes and Humor" forum was funny as hell, but I am an outspoken athiest.
Your quote does not hold water sir.
Truth be told, there was no bird and I never went to the beach today.
It was what it is, a joke.

Dang, HH, here I am all ready to pick a fight (unrelated issues!) and you're doing reasonable posts!:eek: ;) :D
This has evolved into an interesting discussion.

I'm using the exact same argument I used a few weeks ago in the responsibility thread, (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=276467) except there it was addressing responsibility of cyclists, and here I'm addressing responsibility of motorists (and cyclists).

This argument with respect to motorist responsibility is a bit easier to make because I can supplement by citations of Hurst with references to basic defensive driving rules and principles. They're still trying to make it about me for some reason, but I hope this defensive driving angle is a bit easier for some to consider objectively.

That's probably the hardest thing for me on this forum, to get folks to consider my arguments objectively.

Are you making a statement here or asking me what I would do if I were being tailgated?

If you are not asking me to answer this then disregard my answer.
Personally, I would not do what you are stating below, for several reasons.Tthe main reason being, that if the agressor is behind me, then he can not cause me any more grief than he could if he were in front of me. Behind me, I have more control over the situation. In front of me, my actions are from then on, dictated by his. It's not a macho thing, nor is it a testosterone laden control issue. It is a fact. The only harm he can do behind me is to hit me from the rear or pull out a gun and start shooting, and what are the chances of that happening? In front of me, I am then opening myself up for all sorts of brake checking and other ignorant things road ragers do.
I would not pull off to the side of the road. for one, he might take that as an invite for a round of fisticuffs, of which he'd lose I assure you. And second, I refuse to give up my "rights" to someone who is agressive towards me. It is once again, not a macho issue, nor something fueled by testosterone, it is me standing up for my rights as a road user.
Tell me sir, would you do the same to someone being agressive to you while on your bike? You are riding in traffic, and someone behind you starts honking, or people are buzzing you, or insert problem here. Do you tuck tail and pull off the road and let them pass? Or has all your talk about "taking the lane" and being "more assertive" been nothing but hollowness?
Please, answer that. After all your talk about controlling traffic and other VC practices, do you give in to every single motorist out there that starts acting agressive?
All of that was a quote from a defensive driving cite. In general, I put quotes from the forum in the quote box, and quotes from other sites in color.

The words/question, "What about when YOU are being tailgated?", are part of the text I quoted.

All of that was a quote from a defensive driving cite. In general, I put quotes from the forum in the quote box, and quotes from other sites in color.

The words/question, "What about when YOU are being tailgated?", are part of the text I quoted.

Understood. Sorry to confuse, but I do not see color on my terminal, only black and white.
But do you believe what you posted to be true, after all, your statements here are in the backing of this books teachings no?
Assuming that, can you please answer the question(s) I posed to you in my previous post.
Or am I assuming too much?

Are you making a statement here or asking me what I would do if I were being tailgated?

If you are not asking me to answer this then disregard my answer. It was part of the stuff I cited. Sorry about the confusion, but I'll answer anyway.

Personally, I would not do what you are stating below, for several reasons. Just to clarify, it's not what I stated, it's what I quoted (I've fixed the post to make it clear it's a citation).

The main reason being, that if the agressor is behind me, then he can not cause me any more grief than he could if he were in front of me. Behind me, I have more control over the situation. In front of me, my actions are from then on, dictated by his. It's not a macho thing, nor is it a testosterone laden control issue. It is a fact. The only harm he can do behind me is to hit me from the rear or pull out a gun and start shooting, and what are the chances of that happening? In front of me, I am then opening myself up for all sorts of brake checking and other ignorant things road ragers do.
Hmm. That seems contrary to what I've always learned. At least with respect to drunk drivers, they say it's better to keep them in front of you, that you have greater control over what harm he could potentially cause to you if he's ahead of you than if he's behind you. I don't see why this advice should apply only to drunk drivers.

I would not pull off to the side of the road. for one, he might take that as an invite for a round of fisticuffs, of which he'd lose I assure you. And second, I refuse to give up my "rights" to someone who is agressive towards me. It is once again, not a macho issue, nor something fueled by testosterone, it is me standing up for my rights as a road user. Understood. Just note that that is not a defensive driving approach:


Rule 3: Yield Anyway!

"Nobody ever yielded their way into a collision." Think about it. If you are in doubt about who has the right of way, give it away. The other guy may be wrong, but you can end up hurt or dead. We often say no one HAS the right-of-way until it is yielded to them. (Keep in mind I'm talking defensive driving practices, not traffic law.) Right of way rules are often misunderstood, and there are situations where the rules may not be clear to everyone. If there is uncertainty about which vehicle should have the right of way, give the other guy the road. When it comes to driving safely, it's not the principle, but the outcome, that counts.
http://www.roadtripamerica.com/DefensiveDriving/Rule03.htm


Rule 38: Don't Prevent Others from Passing

Defensive driving encompasses many different ideas and practices, one of which is understanding the effects your driving may have on others, and the results this can have on your safety and theirs. In my state of Arizona, there is a law that if another driver approaching from your rear signals by lights or horn their intention to pass you, you must allow them to pass, giving way to the right if necessary to let them around. Many other states have similar laws.

How many times, though, have you had this attitude? "I'm going the speed limit, that guy can just slow down, he doesn't NEED to pass me." I suspect there are few of us that haven't had those feelings at one time or another -- it's just human nature; but it's human nature that we need to overcome, for a couple of reasons.

First, you don't know the reason someone wants to pass you, and while it may be an unusual case, who would want to be in the way of someone who legitimately needs to get somewhere -- like a hospital -- quickly. It doesn't matter that in most such situations, it is better by far to call for emergency help and have the person transported by professionals, in an official emergency vehicle, for many good reasons. In some cases, especially in remote areas, there is no choice but to transport a sick or injured person yourself. On the outside chance this is the case, you should never prevent someone from passing.

Second, each of us, in my opinion, should drive so that the drivers around us stay calm and in control (as much as that is possible), for our OWN safety. You do not want someone behind you that is pressured, frustrated or angry. Preventing another driver from passing you creates unnecessary anger and frustration. In an unsafe attempt to get around you, your obstructive action and their anger can combine to cause serious mishaps, maybe even resulting in injuries or death to you, to them, or to some uninvolved third party. In such a case, you would be partially responsible for the problem, if not legally, certainly morally.

If another driver wants to pass, make every effort to HELP them do it, even pulling off the road if necessary. Doing so takes mere seconds and it is a courteous, safe and intelligent thing to do.
http://www.roadtripamerica.com/DefensiveDriving/Rule38.htm


Tell me sir, would you do the same to someone being agressive to you while on your bike? You are riding in traffic, and someone behind you starts honking, or people are buzzing you, or insert problem here. Do you tuck tail and pull off the road and let them pass? Or has all your talk about "taking the lane" and being "more assertive" been nothing but hollowness?
Please, answer that. After all your talk about controlling traffic and other VC practices, do you give in to every single motorist out there that starts acting agressive? It depends on the situation. My usual approach is to try to defuse the situation by "humanizing" myself (looking back at them with a smile, nod and/or wave, using the slow/stop signal, standing up, etc.), and that's usually all it takes. But if the situation escalates, I yield. You bet.

In fact, in this recent situation (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=280800), I'm not 100% sure if I had already starting moving right after the JAM starting honking, or if I started moving right in response to his honking. By the way, in many states, including CA, drivers of slow moving vehicles are required to move right, if someone behind honks, if it's safe and reasonable to do so.

Edit: Yesterday, I think, somewhere in a discussion with Al, I wrote about yielding when the driver behind is exhibiting psychopathic behavior.

Understood. Sorry to confuse, but I do not see color on my terminal, only black and white.

What are you using??? What kind of system are you on? Hardware? What OS? Browser?

This has evolved into an interesting discussion.

I'm using the exact same argument I used a few weeks ago in the responsibility thread, (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=276467) except there it was addressing responsibility of cyclists, and here I'm addressing responsibility of motorists (and cyclists).

This argument with respect to motorist responsibility is a bit easier to make because I can supplement by citations of Hurst with references to basic defensive driving rules and principles. They're still trying to make it about me for some reason, but I hope this defensive driving angle is a bit easier for some to consider objectively.

That's probably the hardest thing for me on this forum, to get folks to consider my arguments objectively.
I actually understand, but hey, we might not agree always, but I actually do consider what you say and either accept or reject it on it's own merits rather than preconceptions.

It was part of the stuff I cited. Sorry about the confusion, but I'll answer anyway.
Just to clarify, it's not what I stated, it's what I quoted (I've fixed the post to make it clear it's a citation).

Thank you for clarifying. Much of what happens here in A&S can be avoided by a little clarification don't ya think ;)


Hmm. That seems contrary to what I've always learned. At least with respect to drunk drivers, they say it's better to keep them in front of you, that you have greater control over what harm he could potentially cause to you if he's ahead of you than if he's behind you. I don't see why this advice should apply only to drunk drivers.

Likewise, it is what I learned way back when. But 20 years or so has passed between then and now, and things are quite different. I base my actions on what I have learned from the "here and now", not from the "there and then".
I do not purposely try to hinder ANYONE who wishes to pass me. But if someone has a problem behind me, it is there problem, no need for me to make it mine. In my many years behind ther wheel of a car/truck, I have been enlightened to alot of things that differ from what I was taught. I really can't put my finger on the reasoning though, but then again, it's not my place to figure out the semantics of such trivial things.


Understood. Just note that that is not a defensive driving approach:

Duely noted.


It depends on the situation. My usual approach is to try to defuse the situation by "humanizing" myself (looking back at them with a smile, nod and/or wave, using the slow/stop signal, standing up, etc.), and that's usually all it takes. But if the situation escalates, I yield. You bet.

Well, it's nice to see you ARE human after all. :D (just ribbing you there pal)
Sometimes though, when the agressor is not willing to compromise, there is nothing we cyclists can do but give in or get removed from the gene pool I guess. Which is truely sad.
And I hope this next comment doesn't change the mood here thus far, in fact, please don't let it. But this is one of my reasons for perferring a shoulder when available. I'm sure that out your way, the people (motorists) are different. Maybe it's the lack of Vitamin D in the drivers here since we only have sunlight for 6 weeks a year, heh, but when I see you California posters making statements I always wonder "gee, where in the hell are those drivers at around here". Because in my area, people get violent towards one another. And if I can avoid a situation all together, then there is no need to difuse it later.

Thank you for the conversaion. It's nice to have a decent one with you now and again.
You know HH, I can and DO respect your POV, even if I don't agree with much of what you have to say. I think I've told you that before. Maybe it has to do with where we live and that should be taken in to consideration before we post.
Okay, now back to the bickering! :D

What are you using??? What kind of system are you on? Hardware? What OS? Browser?

Well. I am using some pseudo VT100 type terminal connected to one of the robots here at work. From that terminal I have an ssh session open to a RISC machine running Linux sitting just outside of Chicago. On that machine I am using (currently) a text based web browser called "elinks" to access the internet.
Oh, and as for a keyboard, it's kind of like texting with a cell phone, I only have 20 keys, one of them is a function key, and that allows me every combination of character.
nice huh?

Well. I am using some pseudo VT100 type terminal connected to one of the robots here at work. From that terminal I have an ssh session open to a RISC machine running Linux sitting just outside of Chicago. On that machine I am using (currently) a text based web browser called "elinks" to access the internet.
Oh, and as for a keyboard, it's kind of like texting with a cell phone, I only have 20 keys, one of them is a function key, and that allows me every combination of character.
nice huh?
:eek:

The terminal, ssh, IBM Linux server, and text brower I can understand. But 20 keys??? That ain't no VT100...

I'm laughing hysterically, tears in my eyes... on that note, g'night!

:eek:

The terminal, ssh, IBM Linux server, and text brower I can understand. But 20 keys??? That ain't no VT100...

I'm laughing hysterically, tears in my eyes... on that note, g'night!

yeah, it's more of a PCL on crack.
but it has black, white, and green!!! woohooo

you should see how I surf porn! :D

You must live in an absolutely bizarre world if you believe that people should take full responsibility for anything(actually a more precise term would be everything) that happens to them when driving.

Sitting at a stop light, rear ended by Joe Blow. Yup, I take full responsibility for that!
Driving along minding my own business, Donnie Drunk blasts out of a side street and T bones me. Yup, I take full responsibility for that!


There was another claim rep that tried to put 5% liability on our insured, just for driving that day. As if.

No matter the word(s) he uses I agree with HH that people not legally at fault in a collision often times (but not always) partially contributed to it in some way, or at least were not diligent enough to avoid it. There's no other way to explain the fact that some people can go years, even decades, without a collision while others have many that "weren't their fault".

As a teen I was involved in two collisions while driving, neither of which were considered my fault. Looking back I can easily see that had I been more alert and done the right thing, I could have prevented both. Since that time I have not been in any collisions (or received any citations) for over 25 years.

Inattention, inexperience. If someone runs a red light in front of you, and you fail to swerve or brake before hitting them, you are neither at fault nor liable. Your failure to avoid is a grey area outside of liability.

There was another claim rep that tried to put 5% liability on our insured, just for driving that day. As if.

Inattention, inexperience. If someone runs a red light in front of you, and you fail to swerve or brake before hitting them, you are neither at fault nor liable. Your failure to avoid is a grey area outside of liability.

Note that when HH/Robert is talking about responsibility (in the context of what's been posted in this thread), they are not referring to it in the legal sense. Of course, if someone rear ends you while you are stopped at a red light, they are legally at fault. No one here will argue that.

If the guy behind you hits you, you should have handled him earlier:



That of course assumes that there was an "earlier."

I was once rear ended by a motorist that arrived long after the rest of us has stopped for a red light. She just failed to notice the red, and the 4 cars already stopped, and plowed into the entire line of stopped cars at full speed. I was in the vehicle she hit first... which was pushed into the vehicles in front. My truck was turned into an inverted V by the collision. Police arriving at the situation tryed to blame each already stopped vehicle... by saying they plowed into the one in front when it stopped too quickly. The other motorists testified that was not what happened... and the situation was finally cleared up.

The woman that caused the accident did not have insurance. We were all SOL.

Can anyone tell me how we were "complicit" in that situation? Anyone have any suggestions on how to defend against an accident such as that? BTW this was long before cell phones became quite common. This was in about 1990.

A friend of mine did the nearly same thing to someone else, but at a lower speed... he was "thinking" and just failed to notice the stopped cars... at the last minute he slammed on the brakes, but still hit the last vehicle. Did those in the last vehicle fail to defend themselves somehow? He had not been tailgating at all, and tends to drive like a little old man.

This BTW is very consistent with the stats I posted earlier (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=4114152&postcount=83)... regarding rear end collisions.

As usual, a thread about one topic got so bogged down with VC rhetoric that I needed two powerbars to have the strength to read the War and Peace-like voluminous text.

You might as well just get one of these.
http://www.white-noise.biz/picts/Noise_Shield.jpg

That of course assumes that there was an "earlier."

I was once rear ended by a motorist that arrived long after the rest of us has stopped for a red light. She just failed to notice the red, and the 4 cars already stopped, and plowed into the entire line of stopped cars at full speed. I was in the vehicle she hit first... which was pushed into the vehicles in front. My truck was turned into an inverted V by the collision. Police arriving at the situation tryed to blame each already stopped vehicle... by saying they plowed into the one in front when it stopped too quickly. The other motorists testified that was not what happened... and the situation was finally cleared up.

The woman that caused the accident did not have insurance. We were all SOL.

Can anyone tell me how we were "complicit" in that situation? Anyone have any suggestions on how to defend against an accident such as that? BTW this was long before cell phones became quite common. This was in about 1990.

I like to keep extra space in front of me when waiting at a red light just for this (and other) reasons. You should always be aware of vehicles coming up behind you. Did you see the vehicle before it hit you? If you didn't I would consider that a mistake, one that many drivers make. If you are aware and have extra space in front, you may sometimes be able to change lanes (or move up a little) to avoid a wreck. Extra space will also lessen the chance of you hitting the vehicle in front (or being pushed into cross traffic) if you can't avoid being hit. Look around you next time you're stopped at a light and notice how most vehicles butt right up to the vehicle in front of them, leaving them no buffer or maneuvering room.

I like to keep extra space in front of me when waiting at a red light just for this (and other) reasons. You should always be aware of vehicles coming up behind you. Did you see the vehicle before it hit you? If you didn't I would consider that a mistake, one that many drivers make. If you are aware and have extra space in front, you may sometimes be able to change lanes (or move up a little) to avoid a wreck. Extra space will also lessen the chance of you hitting the vehicle in front (or being pushed into cross traffic) if you can't avoid being hit. Look around you next time you're stopped at a light and notice how most vehicles butt right up to the vehicle in front of them, leaving them no buffer or maneuvering room.
:beer:

This thinking from AlmostTrick exemplifies the attitude of the defensive driver/cyclist who takes full responsibility for anything that happens to him.

Keep at it, AT, maybe it will rub off on some of these guys. We can hope.