I guess driving the speed limit is just out of the question...

[AlmostTrick]

Here's another technique I find helpful for lessening the chance of red light rear enders. When approaching a red light start your slowing process much sooner. I find that when I coast to a red light I sometimes even avoid having to come to a stop at all. Plus anyone behind me will be forced to gradually slow with me (or pass, which is ok with me since I'm not racing) instead of maintaining their full cruising speed all the way up to the light.

[genec]

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 follow the rule that one should be able to see the bottom of the tires of the vehicle in front... so I do give that extra room. No one saw the vehicle as it was decending from a steep hill, thus it was out of our rear view mirrors until just before the collision. For those local, this occured at the bottom of College ave at University ave, going west.

As far as being able to move over... that means that no other vehicles are next to you.

As far as this relating directly to cycling... this perhaps is a good reason to filter forward at lights... you then have a buffer of vehicles between you and any late arriving motorists.

BTW speaking of room between you and other vehicles... we are supposed to use a 2 second rule. I rarely see that being used anywhere; although I do attempt to maintain that space myself. Often however other motorists see that gap as room for them to move in front of me. But again relating to cycling, that lack of even a two second gap rather negates cyclists from being able to move into the travel lane as some here have suggested. That lack of a gap also often makes negotiating for a left turn quite difficult, especially when traffic is moving at 50MPH or higher (due to motorists NOT driving the speed limit or less).

Again, if motorists did drive at or below the speed limit, and did in fact follow a 2 second rule, then perhaps cyclists could more readily negotiate with motorists... too bad so many motorists feel it is their "right" to abuse the rules.

As a cyclist, I see driving by the rules as part of a larger co-operative system. Others apparently don't feel that way.

[oscaregg]

I'm so sick of speeders in residential neighborhoods and on narrow rural roads that I've become a stickler for driving my car at precisely the limit regardless of the desires of the redneck halfwits around me.
It has become a gesture of social defiance for me. It's very tempting to make my next car a used Ford Crown Vic with plain blackwall tires and white paint--that could create a "cell" of speed limit compliance around me, at least on the freeway.

[AlmostTrick]

Again, if motorists did drive at or below the speed limit, and did in fact follow a 2 second rule, then perhaps cyclists could more readily negotiate with motorists... too bad so many motorists feel it is their "right" to abuse the rules.

:beer:

I agree that motorists following the speed limit would make cycling more pleasant, and safer too. Unfortunately I don't anticipate that happening any time soon (or at all) so I guess we're stuck with dealing with what we have now which is zoom zoom.

For what it's worth I consider 2 seconds the bare minimum. I always strive for as much buffer as I can get. Often times I find myself positioned with 5, 10 or even more seconds clearance. Yes, the amount of buffer you can achieve is somewhat dependant on traffic density, but even when I manage to have a huge buffer, I always see packs of cars driving within 1 car length of each other in front or behind me. Usually they are speeding to race each other up to the next light where they have to stop and wait. :dumb:

[Helmet Head]

Ok, I get it. I may a bit slow at times, but that right there is all the proof that I need (in a nice tidy package for once!) that we live on different planets.

I'll just stay right here on Earth.
Sulking in typical terrestrial victim mentality no doubt. Suit yourself. I prefer the more enlightened approach. To each his own.

[genec]

:beer:

I agree that motorists following the speed limit would make cycling more pleasant, and safer too. Unfortunately I don't anticipate that happening any time soon (or at all) so I guess we're stuck with dealing with what we have now which is zoom zoom.

For what it's worth I consider 2 seconds the bare minimum. I always strive for as much buffer as I can get. Often times I find myself positioned with 5, 10 or even more seconds clearance. Yes, the amount of buffer you can achieve is somewhat dependant on traffic density, but even when I manage to have a huge buffer, I always see packs of cars driving within 1 car length of each other in front or behind me. Usually they are speeding to race each other up to the next light where they have to stop and wait. :dumb:

Yeah I call those guys "speed trains... " all it takes is one little glitch and you will see a whole pile up of cars. They white knuckle drive about everywhere and can't figure out why their blood pressure is so high... :rolleyes:

[genec]

I would hate to take full responsibility for that.

Perhaps the "full responsibilty" aspect is a bit too extreme, but surely taking responsibilty for those things in your direct control is possible... including becoming an example to other motorists that you might have to deal with as a cyclist.

[Helmet Head]

BTW speaking of room between you and other vehicles... we are supposed to use a 2 second rule. I rarely see that being used anywhere; although I do attempt to maintain that space myself. Often however other motorists see that gap as room for them to move in front of me. But again relating to cycling, that lack of even a two second gap rather negates cyclists from being able to move into the travel lane as some here have suggested. As being one here who has so "suggested" (putting it mildly), I can't believe you wrote this. The two-second gap drivers are supposed to maintain is about gaps within packs of cars (intrapack gaps). The technique I've "suggested", and I thought you understood even to the point of saying you used it yourself, is about moving out of the margin and into the (wide outside) travel lane during 15, 20, 30+ second gaps between packs of cars (interpack gaps). Frankly, I'm astonished that you confused intrapack gaps with interpack gaps like this.

That lack of a gap also often makes negotiating for a left turn quite difficult, especially when traffic is moving at 50MPH or higher (due to motorists NOT driving the speed limit or less). Whether the gap is .5 seconds or 2 seconds is irrelevant when you're trying to negotiate for someone to slow down to your speed, which of course is what you're trying to do when negotiating for an intrapack gap to merge left.

Again, if motorists did drive at or below the speed limit, and did in fact follow a 2 second rule, then perhaps cyclists could more readily negotiate with motorists... too bad so many motorists feel it is their "right" to abuse the rules.

As a cyclist, I see driving by the rules as part of a larger co-operative system. Others apparently don't feel that way. As a defensive driver/cyclist, I see ME driving/cycling by the rules (including the defensive driving rules) as part of a larger safe-for-me system, as is understanding that others often make errors (both unintentional and intentional), setting my expectations accordingly, and driving/cycling with all that in mind.

I don't know if you're getting tired of seeing these quotes from Hurst's chapter in Urban Cycling on "Blame vs. Responsibility" yet, but I'm going to keep citing them as long as you guys keep writing stuff like what I just quoted above.


Thinking in terms of blame while out on the road is a perfect example of self-fulling prophecy. Blame is dangerous.

One of these days I hope you will understand the value and importance of not blaming others for anything that happens to you in all aspects of your life. But traffic is a good place to start (other good places to start are at work and in one's marriage).

[kalliergo]

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?

This is great! You must be one of my younger distant relatives, or one of the techies who worked with me over the years.

Did you also cobble together the keyboard from a discarded calculator and write your own terminal server in assembly language?

The PTB will never really control the 'net.

[Helmet Head]

There's a great deal of difference between being a victim, and having a victim mentality. It has nothing to do with sulking, or a victim mentality.
I don't disagree. I will say that there is a broad gray area, however.

It has to do with a simple fact that you cannot control every aspect of the world around you, despite your claims to the contrary.
Show me where I ever made that claim. You're not paying attention. In fact, I've said the contrary several times in this discussion. And I'm about to do it again...

You can be well prepared, practice "best practices," drive or ride with the highest level of SA possible, and life can still deal you a bad card.
Of course. You're still missing the point, apparently. While it's certainly possible to be dealt a "bad card", for any given incident, we can never know for sure whether that was truly a bad card being dealt, or whether there was something you could/should have done that you failed to do. The defensive driving philosophy is about assuming that there is always something you could/should have done.

Suggesting that people who don't take full responsibility for actions or situations that are beyond their control are somehow unenlightened is condescending, smarmy, pap.
Sorry, but I honestly believe that shedding blame is an important step along the path to an enlightened life in general, and specifically on the road to enlightenment in driving/cycling in traffic. Again I cite Hurst who I believe refers to the same concept when he writes about "the meaning of true freedom":


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.

Even if someone breaks every law in the book and runs you ever in the process, Hurst says your attitude should be that it is your fault and nobody else's. Achieving that attitude is what he says is "the meaning of true freedom". Think about it.

Now, I'm off to check the meteor shield on the roof. Hopefully some drunk doesn't go crashing through my living room while I'm up there.

I would hate to take full responsibility for that.
Don't be silly.

[Helmet Head]

Of course taking responsibility for those things that are in your direct control is possible, and even sensible. Taking full responsibility (or any responsibility) for things that are out of your direct control is ludicrous, as Mr. Head has demonstrated.
What you're suggesting is that you don't believe you have direct control over how much your safety in traffic depends on your own behavior. I believe you do have this control, and this is the essence of the defensive driving philosophy, as well as perhaps the main theme in Hurst's book.


... gather all the responsibilty that can be gathered. Hoard it from those around you.

[genec]

As being one here who has so "suggested" (putting it mildly), I can't believe you wrote this. The two-second gap drivers are supposed to maintain is about gaps within packs of cars (intrapack gaps). The technique I've "suggested", and I thought you understood even to the point of saying you used it yourself, is about moving out of the margin and into the (wide outside) travel lane during 15, 20, 30+ second gaps between packs of cars (interpack gaps). Frankly, I'm astonished that you confused intrapack gaps with interpack gaps like this.


I have not confused the gaps at all. I am very pointedly illustrating that such gaps often do not exist as motorists tend to close them rapidly, often driving well over the speed limit to close such gaps... for what little good it does them once they have arrived on the bumper of the next vehicle. The illusion that a large gap may exist is overridden by motorist driving well beyond the speed limit, and thus reducing their reaction time, while they attempt to close such gaps.

This was well illustrated to me the other night when I could clearly see a nice long gap, and moved over to take a position to enhance my visibilty, only to have a well speeding motorist (it was quite clear they were driving much faster than other motorists as they passed) close the gap too quickly. As a motorist approaches, from a distance, at speed, it is difficult to determine their actual speed. One must then assume that they are driving at the regulated speed, and that they will take a certain amount of time to close a distance. Said motorist may not even be visible... they could be well out of eyesight, thus making a gap appear "infinite; yet that motorist is driving at such a high speed that they close a distance they assumed was wide open. Such incidents occur when vehicles are driven fast by our sports car driving "friends" mentioned in the OP and illustrated by others here.





Whether the gap is .5 seconds or 2 seconds is irrelevant when you're trying to negotiate for someone to slow down to your speed, which of course is what you're trying to do when negotiating for an intrapack gap to merge left.

As a defensive driver/cyclist, I see ME driving/cycling by the rules (including the defensive driving rules) as part of a larger safe-for-me system, as is understanding that others often make errors (both unintentional and intentional), setting my expectations accordingly, and driving/cycling with all that in mind.

I don't know if you're getting tired of seeing these quotes from Hurst's chapter in Urban Cycling on "Blame vs. Responsibility" yet, but I'm going to keep citing them as long as you guys keep writing stuff like what I just quoted above.


One of these days I hope you will understand the value and importance of not blaming others for anything that happens to you in all aspects of your life. But traffic is a good place to start (other good places to start are at work and in one's marriage).

In a marrage, as in many other aspects of life, co-operation is key... violating that co-operation tends to violate those relationships that we as humans respect, be they marrige, business, or standing in line at a movie.

Driving a motor vehicle is a co-operative exercise... it is not done alone in absence of others. It may be perceived to be such at times, but that is most likely due to false perceptions bought on by the tunnel vision of the motorist and perhaps by the speed at which they are driving.

[genec]

This is great! You must be one of my younger distant relatives, or one of the techies who worked with me over the years.

Did you also cobble together the keyboard from a discarded calculator and write your own terminal server in assembly language?

The PTB will never really control the 'net.

Heck it is not that unusual... my phone has a mode to emulate a VT-100 too. And I only have 17 buttons. EDIT... plus the volume controls... 19 buttons total. :D

[AlmostTrick]

HH. I remember from your "What cycling book did you read" poll you had some criticism for Hurst because you thought he made cycling sound too dangerous. Would it be correct to assume that you had a change of opinion on his advice?

[chipcom]

What you're suggesting is that you don't believe you have direct control over how much your safety in traffic depends on your own behavior. I believe you do have this control, and this is the essence of the defensive driving philosophy, as well as perhaps the main theme in Hurst's book.

I don't think you read all of Robert's book then, or you didn't comprehend it. While he does advocate attempting to hoard all responsibility, he outlines many instances where that just isn't possible. Anyone who thinks they have total direct control is, quite frankly, a fool.

[AlmostTrick]

Anyone who thinks they have total direct control is, quite frankly, a fool.

News flash: NOBODY THINKS THAT! At least not here in this thread. It's the level of control one has that is in dispute. Some feel they have plenty of (but NOT total) control over factors concerning their safety, while others are a little too quick to throw up their hands and say it wasn't their fault.

[pj7]

This is great! You must be one of my younger distant relatives, or one of the techies who worked with me over the years.

Did you also cobble together the keyboard from a discarded calculator and write your own terminal server in assembly language?

The PTB will never really control the 'net.

Better yet, I wrote my entire terminal emulation in scripting language using tcl with the tk-curses package. Since I do not have a compiler I had to read the source code of tcl/tk and type out raw binary code into a text editor, of course I had to statically link all libraries in it as well.
And I did all of this just so that I could argue with Helmet Head every night! :D:D

[zeytoun]

If you don't have direct total control over all factors concerning your safety, then how can you accept full responsibility?
This point is lost on some people....

On the one hand, if you point to some of these people the illogic of believing something illogical, and how it's implications include blaming victims of genocide for "letting" it happen, and how the real intent of Hurst's words are to behave as if you are responsible (in other words, a non-literal mindset), they agree with you, and act like you're silly for pointing out the obvious.

Then, they will turn around and criticize and argue in such a way that reveals that they really do believe it literally.

They want to believe something in a rediculously silly way, without acknowledging that they do.

[Helmet Head]

HH. I remember from your "What cycling book did you read" poll you had some criticism for Hurst because you thought he made cycling sound too dangerous. Would it be correct to assume that you had a change of opinion on his advice? From the first time I read the book I thought it had a lot of excellent advice, and a lot of not very good advice. I think the stuff on blame, responsibility and vigilance is simply outstanding. But I still think he makes cycling sound more dangerous than it is.

[Helmet Head]

What you're suggesting is that you don't believe you have direct control over how much your safety in traffic depends on your own behavior. I believe you do have this control, and this is the essence of the defensive driving philosophy, as well as perhaps the main theme in Hurst's book.

I don't think you read all of Robert's book then, or you didn't comprehend it.

I read it. I comprehend it.

While he does advocate attempting to hoard all responsibility, he outlines many instances where that just isn't possible.
I think you need to reread it. Of course it's not possible to gather all responsibility. Sometimes you do have to rely on others. But you still take responsibility for the choice to depend on someone else, and take full responsibility for the consequences it it turns out to be a bad choice: "if some ******* breaks every law in the book and runs you over in the process, it will be your fault and nobody else's. " - Robert Hurst

Anyone who thinks they have total direct control is, quite frankly, a fool.
Agreed, and I haven't said anything to the contrary. If you think I have, then you're not comprehending what I'm writing as well as what Hurst has written.

[zeytoun]

it's not possible to gather all responsibility
But you still take responsibility for the choice to depend on someone else, and take full responsibility for the consequences it it turns out to be a bad choice
So you can't "gather" all responsibility, but even when you can't, you should still "take" it.

[AlmostTrick]

Perhaps you need to read Mr. Head's Hurst quotes, and his own comments about accepting full responsibility for a home burglary, shedding blame, etc.

If you don't have direct total control over all factors concerning your safety, then how can you accept full responsibility?

I plan on taking on as much responsibility and control as I can for my safety. If someone wants to call or consider that "full responsibilty" that's fine by me. I stand by my claim that no one here said they have "total direct control" (Chips words).

[Helmet Head]

I'm out of time, but I will address this one last point.




It has to do with a simple fact that you cannot control every aspect of the world around you, despite your claims to the contrary.

Show me where I ever made that claim.

Right here is a good example.


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.


My choosing to take full responsibilty for protecting my home from burglars is not a claim I can meet that responsibility absolutely: it's saying I don't hold anyone else responsible for protecting my home.

It is certainly not an example of me claiming that I control every aspect of the world around me.

It is very interesting that you seem to equate the two concepts. Apparently, you will only accept full responsibility for something when you believe that you have full direct control for anything that might happen to that something. I don't know of any situation in life where that is the case. It must be nice to never take full responsibilty for anything.

But perhaps I misunderstand. Do you take full responsibility for anything in your life? If so, what?

[zeytoun]

take full responsibility for the consequences it it turns out to be a bad choice
Does this mean, that if you are in an accident, where you followed the law, and sound driving principles, and the other party didn't, that you should:
-accept legal responsibility to damage to your person/property
-accept moral responsibility (forgive them, and think nice thoughts about them)
-have a philosophical realization that there are an infinite number of hypothetical situations in which this might not have happened
-analyze the situation and imagine choices you could make which would have prevented them from hitting you, even though it's too late and you will never be in the exact same circumstances again
-say "i take full responsibilty" but do nothing else on this list
-think "i take full responsibilty" but do nothing else on this list
-try your best to avoid accidents whether they would be your fault or not

Do you see that only one of these choices has any practical value?

[Helmet Head]

You're struggling with language again Mr. Head.

If it's not possible to gather all responsibility, then it is impossible to accept full responsibility.

full1 (fʊl) pronunciation
adj., full·er, full·est.

1. Containing all that is normal or possible: a full pail.

This is just another example of Headspeak™ differing from than the usage found in the nromal use of the english language. One more quick note.

In the context of responsibility, "gather all responsibility" means do not rely on others to be responsible for your safety. "Taking full responsibility" means not blaming anyone but yourself if your safety is compromised.

To ride in traffic it is impossible to "gather all responsibility" - you must choose to rely on others to be responsible at least once in a while. Choosing when and where to do that is part of taking full responsibilty for anything that happens to you, including if it's because of the behavior of someone that you chose to rely on.

Bye.

[genec]

I accept full responsibility for my actions. For example, I'm driving. As a driver you never have full, direct control of everything. If I round a corner, plow Bambi, and kill Bambi, I accept full responsibility for poor Bambi munching flowers in heaven since I hit her.

.

And what about the cyclist, around the corner that you took at a very high speed, because it was "fun." Do you too take responsiblity for that death?

[Helmet Head]

How do you predict the actions of a loose boulder, a drunk driver? You claim that you can.

I never said I predict the actions of a loose boulder or a drunk driver.

What I said was that the fact that some boulders are loose is predictable.
What I said was that the fact that some drivers are drunk is predictable.

How do you accomplish predicting the behavior of people/things that are out of your direct control if you don't have full direct control?
You are confusing predicting the general (some boulders are loose - be prepared for that) with predicting the specific (that boulder is loose).

I do a lot of desert hiking at Anza-Borrego and the Grand Canyon. Part of it is knowing that any rock you step on might be loose, and to always be prepared for that. If one falls because of a loose rock, the novice blames the rock; the experienced trekker blames himself.

Of course I do. I take full responsibility for my actions. That doesn't mean that by merely riding a bike (my action!) I take full responsibility when I get a flat.
I do, every time. And it usually comes from riding in the road margin.

Gotta go.

[zeytoun]

If one falls because of a loose rock, the novice blames the rock; the experienced trekker blames himself.
I don't blame passengerless cars for anything...

[genec]

Where did you get the "very high speed" part? Nice fabrication genec.



Based on our previous discussions, in particular focusing on "excessive speed" as defined by law.



That depends upon the circumstances and is also tempered by the fact that the cyclist is sentient (despite all evidence to the contrary based upon some posts in this forum) as opposed to Bambi, who is not (in real life, not the animated classic).

OK lets keep the personal part out of this and assume that Pete drives in a responsible albeit sometimes fast manner... But consider that not all people are so responsible, how do they know that a sentient being is just around the next sharp bend in the road?



As a follow up question, do you think that driving for "fun" has to put people at risk?

No, it does not... however, some folks do not drive for fun in the right time and place, and therefore do indeed put people at needless risk. Are those folks responsible for their lack of judgement in their choice of time and place?

[chipcom]

HH if you take full responsibility why do you constantly blame others for not comprehending you, not understanding you and attacking you? Don't you take full responsibility for your own words and what happens because of them?

"if some ******* breaks every forum guideline in the book and flames you like a slab of ribs, it will be your fault and nobody else's. " - Me

[Helmet Head]

HH if you take full responsibility why do you constantly blame others for not comprehending you, not understanding you and attacking you? Don't you take full responsibility for your own words and what happens because of them?

"if some ******* breaks every forum guideline in the book and flames you like a slab of ribs, it will be your fault and nobody else's. " - Me
Good point. I try, but it's hard!

[genec]

They don't! Amazing! That's why it's called risk mitigation rather than risk elimination. A prudent driver will drive such that they assume there could be a cyclist around the next sharp bend and part of being prudent is to drive in such a manner that a cyclist riding lawfully can be passed with due care, and also such that a cyclist riding illegally can be passed and/or avoided.

But even prudent folks driving safely stand a chance of hitting the drunk cyclist wearing black with no lights riding towards them in the middle of the their lane at night.



Ahhhh... if only we all were so prudent. Both cyclists and motorists alike.

As a cyclist in this forum I tend to focus on the imprudent motorist that may tend to make my prudent cycling even more difficult. Hence the OP where apparently the motorist dismissed traffic tickets with a mere wave of a checkbook... perhaps said motorist should examine his approach to the roadway instead.

I have given you the benefit of the doubt simply by your membership in this cycling forum. (by my apology back several posts)

However, the reality is not all motorists share your prudence and sense of responsiblity.

[AlmostTrick]

But even prudent folks driving safely stand a chance of hitting the drunk cyclist wearing black with no lights riding towards them in the middle of the their lane at night.

This is true. But according to you additional speed on the part of the motorist (this was a thread about speeders) will not increase the chance of the cyclist being hit. :rolleyes: Yeah right.

[AlmostTrick]

"if some ******* breaks every forum guideline in the book and flames you like a slab of ribs, it will be your fault and nobody else's. " - Me

:lol: :lol: :lol: I have to admit that was a good one Chip!

[Helmet Head]

I never said I predict the actions of a loose boulder or a drunk driver.
Yes you did (unless someone stole your login and spewed out post #156. If they did, they did a good imitation of your typical silliness)

Thieves are predictable, like red light runners, drunk drivers, and loose boulders. Blaming the thief is like blaming the boulder.
Sorry. I thought my meaning was clear. One again, I was wrong. Please allow me to clarify.

By "thieves are predictable" I meant, "it is predictable that thieves exist, and may try to burglar you house" (so lock your doors, get an alarm system, house-sitter, etc.)

By "red light runners are predictable" I meant, "it is predictable that people run red lights" (so don't enter an intersection you have not cleared).

By "drunk drivers are predictable" I meant, "it is predictable that some drivers are drunk" (so don't assume drivers are sober, and drive accordingly).

By "loose boulders are predicatable" I meant, "it is predictable that some boulders are loose" (so don't rely on a rock to not roll unless you've verified it's solid - be prepared for it to move).

Sorry for the confusion. It did not occur to me that any other interpretation was plausible. I thought the "is like blaming the boulder" language and the number of examples would have made it clear.



You are confusing predicting the general (some boulders are loose - be prepared for that) with predicting the specific (that boulder is loose).
Nope. Au contraire, Monsieur Tete, it is you who are confused about the outrageous claims that you have made.
Now you're engaging in a semantic argument insisting on interpreting my words in a way that makes their meaning outrageous and absurd, a way that is inconsistent with everything else I've written, and that I clearly could not have intended.

Having said that, if that's the way you're interpreting what I'm saying, it's no wonder you are forming the opinions you are expressing.

They are even more damning when appreciated in their original context where you take full responsibility for your house being burgled. More specifically, I take full responsibilty for not taking better action to prevent the burglary, the likelihood of which is predictable, because thieves are predictable (that is, it is predictable that thieves might choose to target my house).

Great. I'm going to start blaming you for any flats that I get from now on. It makes just as much sense. Figures you would blame anyone but yourself for a flat that you got based on your choices of where on the road to ride. Mr. Not Complicit reveals the pattern of blame again.

[AlmostTrick]

Please provide me with a direct quote wherein I addressed this specific scenario and made that claim.

Thanks.

If my reply is too subtle for you just let me know and I'll spell it out in very simple terms for you.

Hmmm... maybe even after eight pages of reading your posts your words were a little too subtle for me. So which one is it? Will the cyclist fare better when the motorist is exceeding the speed limit or not? Same motorist, same conditions.

[Helmet Head]

That's incorrect. I'm reading your words the way that you have written them. The problem that is being repeated here is that what you think you write and what you actually write are often two very different things. You misuse the language frequently and then blame people because of your inept usage.
For communication - whether it is written or spoken - to be effective, the intent of the speaker/writer must be conveyed to the listener/reader. English is not a perfect means for conveying concepts. I am truly sorry I misused the language. I should be more careful and not use "shorthand" like that. It was unintentional. Now, are you going to hold me to what the words meant to you even though you now know that's now what I meant, or can we proceed?

This is just the latest example. Can you truly not understand the enormous difference between "drunk drivers are predictable" and "some drunk drivers are predictable"?
Can you not understand that neither has definitive meaning without context? By the way, I didn't mean either. I meant, again, "drunk drivers being among the drivers out there are predictable"; "it is able to be predicted that one is likely to encounter drunk drivers in traffic". In retrospect, saying "drunk drivers are predictable" is probably not the best use of English. But given the context, where I also wrote, "boulders are predictable", again, I thought the only possible meaning was clear. I was in a hurry; stop breaking my balls over this.

Describing thieves as "predictable" is a pretty confused way of trying to say "thieves exist."
Then why didn't you ask what I meant back when I wrote it? When I encounter something that seems odd to me, I say, "that doesn't make sense to me".

Furthermore, what is the point of stating things that are obvious to any citizen like "thieves exist," "people run red lights, " etc.? Other than filling more of the screen, that is.
The point is that predictable events should be prepared for. If you live in tornado alley, "tornados are predictable" (meaning: it is predictable that you will encounter tornados). SO, you should have storm cellar.

"Burglars are predictable" (it is predictable that burglars might attempt to burgle your house), SO... get good locks, lock your house, get an alarm system, use a house sitter when on vacation, etc.

My point is that defensive driving is all about being prepared for that which is predictable (like encountering ride light runners).


Do you believe that any burglary is absolutely preventable?

In theory, yes. In practice, who knows?

Don't let your inability to recognize humor fool you into any revelation of patterns Mr. Head.
Whatever.

Also, your myopia is showing once again. There are many, many more causes of flats than someone's choice of where they ride on the road.
In theory, sure. In practice, in my experience, almost all flats are caused by debris I probaby picked up after choosing to ride in the margin.

Now, are you going to interpret my point and the meaning of my words in terms of my intent, or are you going to continue to insist on an interpretation that I've explained over and over that I did not intend?

[trackhub]

Responding to the OP:

This has been going on in Massachusetts for a long time. The district court system is seriously backlogged as people are choosing to fight moving violations. In MA, contesting a speeding ticket is a two-step process.

When you choose to contest, your first hearing will be before a clerk-magistrate of the district court. This is not a judge, but these folks wield a lot of clout, at least at the district court level. (It's a political appointment, for life. One does not need a law degree, or a law license to qualify for this position. 'nuff said) The officer who issues the ticket does not need to be present at this hearing. A typical hearing takes less than ten minutes. The clerk-magistrate will either find you "responsible" (guilty) or "not responsible" (not guilty) Most people are found responsible. Now it gets interesting.

You have the right to appeal this decision to the district court within ten business days. This is what people are doing. You must pay a fee to file this appeal. People are paying it, no problem. This hearing will be before an actual judge, and the officer who issued the ticket must appear to present his case, (the old "you word against mine" bit) or else you win by default. In some district courts, your hearing may not be for months. Bear in mind that all this time, the citation is not yet on your driving record.

People are appearing at their hearings, with their lawyers, and more often today, the speeding tickets are being dismissed. (finding of not responsible) Experienced lawyers can find all sorts of small technical reasons to get your ticket dismissed. Errors in Radar speed measurements are the most common.

If you get a ticket from a state trooper in MA, most experienced speeders will tell you to contest it anyway, even without a lawyer. How so? MA is a state that requires road construction projects to have police detail officers directing traffic, instead of flag persons, the common practice in other states. Officers work overtime on these details, and it's frequently very lucrative. Why does this matter? Well, if a court appearance conflicts with a more lucrative construction detail, guess which one the officer will pick? Can't blame them, really. Oh, they show up sometimes, especially if they remember you, for some reason. (i.e. The guy in the BMW who said "Do you know who I AM?" after being stopped, or the foul-mouthed chick in the Honda, who threatened to tell her boyfriend.) Local PD officers from small towns are much more likely than state PD officers to appear in court for a traffic stop hearing.

What's it all mean? To me, it simply means that aggressive, "Nobody tells ME what to do" drivers are unlikely to get any punishment at all. Caught while driving to endanger today, back at it tomorrow.

What do I think? I think it stinks.

Thanks, I feel better now.

[genec]

Conversely, there are many cases where coming around a corner at night and finding a drunk cyclist wearing black in your lane while exceeding the speed limit would not cause the drunk cyclist to fare worse.

I want to know what unique physics exist in your world where F=/=MxA, such that the increased acceleration of a speeding motorist meeting a drunken cyclist wearing ninja black would end in a result that "would not cause the drunk cyclist to fare worse."

[genec]

Whoa, pulling out the slide rule!

You have your context mixed up genec. Read the discussion with AlmostTrick again.

"But according to you additional speed on the part of the motorist (this was a thread about speeders) will not increase the chance of the cyclist being hit."

We're discussing the chances of getting hit, not what happens after he is hit.

HTH.

Oh so a faster closing speed will not increase the chances of getting hit? So the speeding motorist has developed a unique reaction time far faster than that of a normal human? Or the drunk cyclist will simply react faster to the speeding motorist? Sorry... You are going to have to do better with your scenerios.

Since you are so sure that speed will not make things worse... perhaps you should paint the picture the rest of us mere "rocket scientists" just can't seem to grasp.

[Brian]

Is this just a battle to get the last word in, or is there still some merit to this debate?

[chipcom]

Is this just a battle to get the last word in, or is there still some merit to this debate?

I got in one good twist of a phrase...I'm good to go. :D

[Helmet Head]

Yet you wrote the latter, "What I said was that the fact that some drivers are drunk is predictable," to clarify the former, "drunk drivers are predictable."

So you wrote these two different phrases, with different meaning, when you actually meant something else.
I meant what I wrote and I wrote what I meant. I'm not going to argue semantics with you any longer.

Now that we have that straightened out, let's go back to post #156, where I will clarify my original intent (at the very end) with better English.

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.). ORIGINAL: Thieves are predictable, like red light runners, drunk drivers, and loose boulders.
REWRITE FOR CLARIFICATION: That someone might try to break into your house when you're on vacation is predictable, so we should prepare for it. It is predictable like the fact that someone might run a red light, that some drivers are drunk, that some boulders are loose. It is our choice whether to take full responsibility to be prepared for these events.
ORIGINAL: Blaming the thief is like blaming the boulder. There is no point.

Better?

[chipcom]

Privately, I would take full responsibilty (I should have had better locks, better alarm system, a house sitter, etc.). ORIGINAL: Thieves are predictable, like red light runners, drunk drivers, and loose boulders.
REWRITE FOR CLARIFICATION: That someone might try to break into your house when you're on vacation is predictable, so we should prepare for it. It is predictable like the fact that someone might run a red light, that some drivers are drunk, that some boulders are loose. It is our choice whether to take full responsibility to be prepared for these events.
ORIGINAL: Blaming the thief is like blaming the boulder. There is no point.

Better?

Then I guess we shouldn't bother prosecuting the burglar, because you won't press charges...there is no point. :rolleyes: Seriously HH, you picked a bad example here. I don't care how much you prepare not to have your house, or anything else broken into...if someone is determined to do so, they will. That's a hard, cold fact, whether you want to accept it or not.

[Helmet Head]

Then I guess we shouldn't bother prosecuting the burglar, because you won't press charges...there is no point. :rolleyes:
Holding him responsible for his actions is separate from the question of who is responsible for the security of my home.

Seriously HH, you picked a bad example here. I don't care how much you prepare not to have your house, or anything else broken into...if someone is determined to do so, they will. That's a hard, cold fact, whether you want to accept it or not.
Yes, I know all that. I am curious as to why you think that makes this a bad example (by the way, PF picked it, not me).

I, and no one else (if someone else, who?), is responsible for the security of my home, just as I, and no one else (if someone else, who?), is responsible for my safety when I'm cycling or driving in traffic (or boulder hopping in the desert for that matter).

[AlmostTrick]

Oh so a faster closing speed will not increase the chances of getting hit? So the speeding motorist has developed a unique reaction time far faster than that of a normal human?

Yep, and they have a lawyer to prove it! ;) :lol:

[genec]

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.


Interesting analogy... the biggest difference however is that the boulder is not a thinking sentient being working in a co-operative system with established rules, where as a motorist is and has training on how to work within the traffic system.

While a cyclist is primarily responsible for their own safety, they also are part of a much larger system that includes other humans that are also responsible for their own actions.

Attempting to compare an inanimate object to a thinking human is a bit of a stretch. (although certainly some motorists fit the description... sigh)

[genec]

Is this just a battle to get the last word in, or is there still some merit to this debate?

I think there are still a few details to be worked out... don't slam it shut quite yet, please.

[Helmet Head]

Nope. You're so far out in left field that the stadium is over the horizon at this point.

You'll just continue to live in your own strange little world, replete with bizarre language mutation which only you can understand, and which baffles normal people, while those same normal people continue to be amused by your antics.

Please remember that this remains your fault and nobody else's

p.s. If you "meant what I wrote and I wrote what I meant" why did you write three completely different things?
Nice punt. :rolleyes:

p.s. I wrote the same thing a number of different ways because someone seemed to have a hard time understanding what I meant, but apparently it was a semantic ruse to avoid addressing the real points in this debate, as is shown by his unwillingness to discuss anything else.

[Helmet Head]

Interesting analogy... the biggest difference however is that the boulder is not a thinking sentient being working in a co-operative system with established rules, where as a motorist is and has training on how to work within the traffic system.

While a cyclist is primarily responsible for their own safety, they also are part of a much larger system that includes other humans that are also responsible for their own actions.

The other analogy I had in mind is protecting the home against burglars and termites. There, again, you have a sentient threat, and an insentient threat. Yet a home owner's responsibility is the same: protect and maintain the security and integrity of the home. What if some genius altered a little dna and created a species of sentient termites who knew the difference between right and wrong, but didn't care (just like burglars)? Would that affect the responsibility you had to protect your home against termites? Of course not.

Attempting to compare an inanimate object to a thinking human is a bit of a stretch. (although certainly some motorists fit the description... sigh)
That's my point, and that's why it's not a stretch.

Whether it's animate (burglars, motorists or termites) or inanimate (boulders, pot holes), whether it's sentient (burglars, motorists, dna-altered termites) or not (standard termites, boulders, pot holes), the main thing they have in common is that they are threats to that which one (the cyclist, the homeowner) is responsible to protect (the cyclist's safety, the home's security and integrity).

There is a lot of complaining about people not taking responsibility in our society, but very little looking in the mirror.