Advocacy & Safety - Ideas, let's talk safety... and who's to blame.

Recently on A&S several ideas have been thrown about, ranging from the need to be more obvious on the road, to some need to have turn signals and lights, to the ever popular take on mirrors.

At one point a poster even stated "why don't we just drive motorcycles."

Well, the fact is that even with mirrors, even centered in the lane, even with lights (turnsignals and stoplights) and even making a bunch of noise and it being on a flat road in the middle of the day... 5 motorcyclists were killed yesterday on an Imperial County Highway by an impatient driver who attempted to pass... the unharmed driver left the scene.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/nov/13/ocotillo-crash-involves-seven-motorcycles-and-two-/


...an eastbound gold Honda Civic went into the westbound lane to pass a dozen motorcyclists also going east. A westbound Dodge Avenger driver saw the Honda in his lane and swerved onto the sandy shoulder to avoid a collision. The Dodge then veered out of control back onto the pavement and collided with some of the motorcyclists.

The sedan driver suffered major injuries and his female passenger was killed. Both were from Mexico.

The Honda that caused the incident by trying to pass did not stop, and authorities were looking for the driver.


Folks as much as you want to try to ride safely, and are, in some cases, willing to even emulate motorcycle riders with loads of lights and helmets et. al., the bottom line is that as long as some drivers act like idiots... your best efforts may be for naught. :notamused:

What can be done to get such idiots off the road... Why is it that it is so easy to get a driver's license and so hard to suspend one?

Pics:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/14/california.motorcyle.accident/index.html

That's terrible. RIP.

As long as we live in a culture that absolves automobile drivers of responsible behavior, things will never change. To add insult to injury, read the following story:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/11/14/national/a093628S48.DTL&tsp=1

Yup, amazing ain't it. ^^^^^ you try to do the right thing... But all it takes is some idiot motorist to ruin your whole life, and then the "system" looks the other way.

Sure there are idiot cyclists out there... but society doesn't give them a "reset button" or a "get out of jail free" card. Nope, you pretty much have to be a motorist for those special exemptions.

It really seems like society has just collectively "decided" that driving is an irrevocable entitlement. We don't permanently ban people from driving even when they've demonstrated over and over again that they are terrible drivers (witness all the people with multiple DUI convictions, etc who still have licenses or just ignore their suspended license). We simply don't require any meaningful test of driver competence. Nowadays it often feel like we should be doing some sort of psychological profiling for suitable temperament for driving in addition to tests of competence.

I guess America has just decided that a certain number of traffic deaths per year is acceptable and that we don't want to do anything meaningful about it. Hence the reason that while traffic deaths have declined a great deal in most other developed countries, they have declined by a much lesser amount here: either we just don't care, or we've somehow collectively been brainwashed into thinking there are no practical solutions to the problem. It's always interesting to me that if you post about this sort of thing on any non-bike forum on the Internet, there is massive resistance to any sort of mention of greater regulation of driver behavior. Aren't non-cyclists also afraid of all the jackasses they share the road with? Or are they convinced that all the high-tech protections in their car will protect them should one of these people hit them? I just don't understand "car culture" mentality, and I don't think I ever will (even though I do drive regularly).

As far as actual solutions, we could be doing plenty more to prevent bad drivers from driving that we aren't right now because the problem is not taken seriously. One thing I would like to see is extensive monitoring/surveillance of people with suspended drivers' licenses. Take away their privacy and have them forfeit their right to move around unimpeded without frequent monitoring of their activities. After all, with how hard it is to lose your license, at that point you've proven that you're not capable of behaving as a responsible adult.

Make them pay to wear an electronic ankle bracelet capable of detecting when they're moving at a speed typical of driving, and have that report in to the cops in realtime. Then, they could do random checks to see if it's you behind the wheel vs. someone else. If caught driving, they could throw in jail for a few years and seize your vehicle. This might not be the best system to use, but I feel confident that electronic monitoring could go a long way towards addressing the problem. It could also be used to address some other problems like aggressive driving, tailgating, and so on.

Any 14 year old's death is tragic...

Was he really ramp-jumping his bike into a busy street?

We had to hide the ramps when I was 14 and no parent would have let us set up our fun on "Rt 69", I'm not defending either party...

...just sayin'

I try really hard to stay out of threads like this because they tend to become pointless rants against someone-not-thinking-as-I-do.
Sh** happens. People die. Assigning blame and getting retribution or punishing "offenders" don't bring the dead back to life nor heal all wounds.
I'm a fatalist. I'm going to be hit or have a bike accident eventually. It's going to happen. I accept it without being non-chalant about it.
That allows me to ride without the weight of the world's worries, injustices and pain on my shoulders. It also allows me to sleep well at night.


Added: When one considers that, in the US, some people believe illegal immigrants have a right to a driver's license, not revoking a license from a legal resident who's been in an accident is far from surprising.

I try really hard to stay out of threads like this because they tend to become pointless rants against someone-not-thinking-as-I-do.
Sh** happens. People die. Assigning blame and getting retribution or punishing "offenders" don't bring the dead back to life nor heal all wounds.
I'm a fatalist. I'm going to be hit or have a bike accident eventually. It's going to happen. I accept it without being non-chalant about it.
That allows me to ride without the weight of the world's worries, injustices and pain on my shoulders. It also allows me to sleep well at night.


Probably one of the more sensible things said on this forum. The basic problem is the structure of our transportation networks and urban "planning" on this continent. Not having a car and not being able to drive equals disenfranchisement (indeed many people are more jealous of their right to clog up the roads than their right to vote). As long as we treat driving as a right and have no reasonable alternative. We are stuck with large numbers of accidents and people dying.

As long as we live in a culture that absolves automobile drivers of responsible behavior, things will never change. To add insult to injury, read the following story:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/11/14/national/a093628S48.DTL&tsp=1

a helmet won't do shyt for you if you are hit by a motorist traveling at 80+ mph.

:(

Was he really ramp-jumping his bike into a busy street?

We had to hide the ramps when I was 14 and no parent would have let us set up our fun on "Rt 69", I'm not defending either party...

...just sayin'

so you're inclined to defend the perp?

:rolleyes:

I'm a fatalist. I'm going to be hit or have a bike accident eventually. It's going to happen. I accept it without being non-chalant about it. That allows me to ride without the weight of the world's worries, injustices and pain on my shoulders.
So, what's going to happen after you get hit? Do you anticipate that you will be back on your bicycle as soon as physically possible? Do you think the weight of your world might gain a few pounds? People seem to react differently after being hit, which is why I'm asking. What do you anticipate?

a helmet won't do shyt for you if you are hit by a motorist traveling at 80+ mph.

That's a pretty broad brush, even though I agree with the general notion. There are way too many scenarios to call it accurate though.

If I were hit from behind by a low-slung/profile car going that speed, chances are that my 63cm frame is going to take the brunt of the hit and I'll mostly sail over the top of it.

There are some positive things being done. I read an article in NewScientist last year that described what was happening in one of the Dakotas (I can never keep ND and SD straight). When someone loses his/her license for DUI, they put a wifi-enabled ankle bracelet on. The bracelet detects whether or not the wearer has been drinking. Abstinence from drinking is a condition of the drunk's parole. Whenever the anklet wearer is near a wifi device it sends its data to authorities. They have decided to fight the addiction rather than use all their resources on keeping him/her from getting behind the wheel.

Then there is the actions being taken in Orange County (and I think a few other CA counties). When someone is convicted of DUI, they make them sign a document stating that they are aware that a drunk driver poses a tremendous risk to innocent people. They then use this document to enable a second degree murder prosecution when the repeat offenders kill.

I don't know how effective either of these programs have been, but at least the prosecutors are thinking outside the box and trying to improve an inadequate system.

a helmet won't do shyt for you if you are hit by a motorist traveling at 80+ mph.

:(

But it might if I get hit by a motorist doing up to 30mph.

No one ever argued that a bike helmet could save a person from an 80mph collision, or from a high speed train wreck, or an airplane crash, or a meteor impact for that matter. So I'm not sure what your point is.

So, what's going to happen after you get hit? Do you anticipate that you will be back on your bicycle as soon as physically possible? Do you think the weight of your world might gain a few pounds? People seem to react differently after being hit, which is why I'm asking. What do you anticipate?The reality is I don't think about "what happens after". I'll deal with it or be dead - either way, worrying about it now won't affect what happens then.

And let's be REAL. A 3-foot law, for example, means NOTHING to a driver while actually driving (including myself). No one I know carries a 3 foot ruler strapped to either the right or left side of the vehicle being driven. It's always going to be an "eyeballed" measurement. If a driver gives "3 feet" of room, it'll be a coincidence or a complete abdication by the car driver...not an adherence to the law, per se.

Laws, in general, also don't do sh** to protect anyone. They certainly don't prevent being right hooked, t-boned, or blown around by 18-wheeler drafts. How often do you see drivers change lanes/turn without signalling? What about texting while driving in states that have laws against that? Talking on the phone? Speeding? Reaching over the seat to quiet/correct a kid? I'm pretty dang sure that there are laws aginst those things too. Laws do not PREVENT bad driving behavior - only identify that which CAN BE grounds for "criminal" legal action.

Helmet laws don't prevent injuries or death - they only make those who wear them feel more secure before accidents. I'm pretty damn sure Sonny Bono's helmet didn't stop him from dying after skiing into that tree did it? Or that Kennedy kid doing the same thing? Admittedly those were skiing accidents, but the central idea to the argument is consistent. Certain laws are "feel good" laws. Laws, by themselves, don't change anything.

I ride defensively, but not overly so. I ride aggressively, but not rudely. I take the lane when appropriate - which is far less often than lots of riders I see as just obnoxious, ill-mannered idiots. My legal and moral rights to the road are outweighed by a ton or more of metal that hits me, if/when it does. There's no realistic counter-argument to that. If I'm dead/seriously injured, arguing that "I had the right of way/he was at fault" won't bring me back to life or make any pain go away.

So, "change my world"? Add weight to it? Pffft. Dumb question - I already said I'm a fatalist.

But it might if I get hit by a motorist doing up to 30mph.

No one ever argued that a bike helmet could save a person from an 80mph collision, or from a high speed train wreck, or an airplane crash, or a meteor impact for that matter. So I'm not sure what your point is.

No, it would not. Even in a 30 mph collision with another vehicle, a helmet would not protect you from injury. You are ascribing magical properties to The Bicycle Helmet which do not exist, even in the manufacturers' literature.

No, it would not. Even in a 30 mph collision with another vehicle, a helmet would not protect you from injury. You are ascribing magical properties to The Bicycle Helmet which do not exist, even in the manufacturers' literature.

So are you seriously suggesting a helmet could never do anything positive even in a collision of 30mph or less? Remember, all I said was that a helmet might have a positive effect in collisions up to 30mph. I never said it would protect from 'injury' - you seem to be arguing against a point I never made. Heck, I'm well aware that helmets don't protect against broken limbs. But if you think a helmet doesn't reduce the potential for head injuries in low-speed impacts, there's no point in discussing this with you because you're living in a fantasy world in which the laws of physics don't apply.

Straw man arguments like yours are the whole reason I find it hard to keep coming back here. Someone makes a comment, then someone attacks it because they've either misunderstood it or they desperately need to mischaracterize it. At a certain point, the straw men get so common that it becomes clear that most people are not interested in having a conversation at all - they just want to watch themselves yell, bully and berate. I mean what's the point of saying "I like cake" when someone immediately comes along to quote me out of context and say "You're a moron! If you like pie, you're crazy! Pie fans should DIE!"

. Not having a car and not being able to drive equals disenfranchisement (indeed many people are more jealous of their right to clog up the roads than their right to vote). As long as we treat driving as a right and have no reasonable alternative. We are stuck with large numbers of accidents and people dying.

I think it is worse than that. Automobiles are not looked up as transportation in this country, they are the primary means of self-expression. We (as a society) have bought the Madison Avenue premise that our vehicle is a social identifier.

a helmet won't do shyt for you if you are hit by a motorist traveling at 80+ mph.

:(

Safety is a layered, behavioral system. Wearing a helmet isn't part of the layer(s) that protects you from getting hit by another vehicle.

I think it is worse than that. Automobiles are not looked up as transportation in this country, they are the primary means of self-expression. We (as a society) have bought the Madison Avenue premise that our vehicle is a social identifier.

Yes, they are. I don't really understand this mentality, but you're right. The "average" American views their car as an extension of themselves, not as a useful appliance that helps them to get from Point A to Point B. This is a triumph of marketing, and a tragedy for our society. It often seems like people have a sort of literal Stockholm Syndrome towards the cars that keep them captive. They get very defensive if you criticize drivers, driving, or car society in any way, because they identify with those things. It's gotten to the point that the car is literally the most fundamental aspect of the American Way of Life, and anyone who has a problem with that is seen as a socially maladjusted agitator.

I also think this thing about how the kind of car you drive signals your social status is very true, and definitely contributes to how some drivers treat bicyclists on the road. Because the majority of people who don't drive cars every day are in that situation because of low economic status, many people associate not being in a car with low status (or, conversely with high status: look at all the people who baselessly assume that anyone in Lycra is a "recreational" rider selfishly impeding their commute to work). This, I think, causes many of them to think that it's socially acceptable to push bicyclists around with their cars. We need to somehow break this mentality, but I doubt it will happen without a major increase in the cost of car ownership and operation. Only then will bicycling for transportation start to seem more "normal" for people.

Sh** happens. People die. Assigning blame and getting retribution or punishing "offenders" don't bring the dead back to life nor heal all wounds.
I'm a fatalist. I'm going to be hit or have a bike accident eventually...

so, are you making the same argument while doing other things (and not just when cycling)?

Drive a car and get T-boned, walk across the street and be hit by a distracted driver, use the stairs, trip and break your neck from the ensuing fall?

... all I said was that a helmet might have a positive effect in collisions up to 30mph...

and pigs might fly too.

How is it you think a helmet made to protect children from simple falls with no involvement with cars, is also able to protect adults traveling in traffic and being hit by cars?

People, The only thing safety related that needs to work is the human brain, everything else is just an excuse, a crutch or window dressing on a pig. A helmet won't do anything unless the person wearing it exercises mental clarity during its use. Cars will never be safe as long as some drivers brain tells them that 3 seconds is a lifetime and they better pass this (insert your own noun here) or they are going to be late.

It takes brains to be safe, nothing else matters, no law, and no safety device.

I think it is worse than that. Automobiles are not looked up as transportation in this country, they are the primary means of self-expression. We (as a society) have bought the Madison Avenue premise that our vehicle is a social identifier.

I think that is one link to the overall problem... due to that social connection, driver's licenses carry more "weight" than they should, and convicting an errant motorist becomes a problem... also the need for individual responsibility when driving tends to be watered down. Motorists do not consider the consequences of their actions, and frankly few actions carry any consequences at all.

People, The only thing safety related that needs to work is the human brain, everything else is just an excuse, a crutch or window dressing on a pig. A helmet won't do anything unless the person wearing it exercises mental clarity during its use. Cars will never be safe as long as some drivers brain tells them that 3 seconds is a lifetime and they better pass this (insert your own noun here) or they are going to be late.

It takes brains to be safe, nothing else matters, no law, and no safety device.

So how do we ensure that the other road users are "engaging" brains before they encounter us?

Seems like there is always some story about some situation in which some random motorist has taken out a bunch of innocents... whether it be folks at a swap meet in California, or a peloton of cyclists in a race, or a group on motorcycles just traveling down the road on bright sunny day...

I never said it would protect from 'injury' - you seem to be arguing against a point I never made. Heck, I'm well aware that helmets don't protect against broken limbs. But if you think a helmet doesn't reduce the potential for head injuries in low-speed impacts, there's no point in discussing this with you because you're living in a fantasy world in which the laws of physics don't apply.

Actually, if you understood the physics and biomechanics, and read the research, as I have, you would understand that, not only does a helmet offer no protection against TBI in low speed collisions, it actually has the potential of worsening it.

The only fantasy going on here is your fantasy that you have a clue.

I'm in for talking about safety, but only if the us vs. them attitude is dropped and it is recognized that the us is everyone who wants and advocates for safer roadways for all drivers and pedestrians.

Too often however the us is just cyclists (or pedestrian, or motorcyclist) and the them is 'cagers.' with the added baggage of this being some 'battle' This is not a cyclist only issue, there are drivers of all kinds who want the roadways to be safer.

I'm in for talking about safety, but only if the us vs. them attitude is dropped and it is recognized that the us is everyone who wants and advocates for safer roadways for all drivers and pedestrians.

Too often however the us is just cyclists (or pedestrian, or motorcyclist) and the them is 'cagers.' with the added baggage of this being some 'battle' This is not a cyclist only issue, there are drivers of all kinds who want the roadways to be safer.

True, with some nearly 40,000 motorists killed annually, one would think there would be some sort of hew and cry to fix this situation... but then motorists have to be told to not text in while driving... why does this dichotomy exist? Isn't it obvious to a driver than one cannot pay attention to the road and a texting device at the same time?

In the case cited in the OP, apparently it wasn't obvious enough to the driver of the Honda that he couldn't pass safely.

BTW noisebeam, the reason for the "us and them" sort of manifestation is that this is an "us" message board... so conversations do tend to be somewhat one sided. Not to mention that few motorists will stand up and state... "yeah, I'm a bad driver..."

So how do we ensure that the other road users are "engaging" brains before they encounter us?

I think that this is the right question. It is one of the reasons why modern roundabouts do so much better with regards to safety.

In brief, one, engineer roads such that they require drivers to pay attention to navigate them successfully. Or more generally, roads designed for the human machines piloting cars. Two, reasonably increase enforcement to alter driver behavior. Elsewhere, I advocated automated enforcement. I think criminal penalties should be ramped up too to account for negligent driving that falls short of gross negligence. Three, we can hold on until Google -- or some other firm -- developes a computer that can drive a car.


I'm in for talking about safety, but only if the us vs. them attitude is dropped and it is recognized that the us is everyone who wants and advocates for safer roadways for all drivers and pedestrians.

Too often however the us is just cyclists (or pedestrian, or motorcyclist) and the them is 'cagers.' with the added baggage of this being some 'battle' This is not a cyclist only issue, there are drivers of all kinds who want the roadways to be safer.

Absolutely.

I think that this is the right question. It is one of the reasons why modern roundabouts do so much better with regards to safety.

In brief, one, engineer roads such that they require drivers to pay attention to navigate them successfully. Or more generally, roads designed for the human machines piloting cars. Two, reasonably increase enforcement to alter driver behavior. Elsewhere, I advocated automated enforcement. I think criminal penalties should be ramped up too to account for negligent driving that falls short of gross negligence. Three, we can hold on until Google -- or some other firm -- develops a computer that can drive a car.



I think this is key... making roads that resemble slot car tracks for mindless drivers is NOT helping anyone.

and pigs might fly too.

How is it you think a helmet made to protect children from simple falls with no involvement with cars, is also able to protect adults traveling in traffic and being hit by cars?

The same way a glove protects your hands during a fall. I would much rather be wearing a helmet when my head scrapes along the roadway at 30 mph than not. I would much rather be wearing a helmet when my head launches through some moron's windshield than not.

I was once hit on the head by a falling two car garage door. That was very, very painful. I would been in much less pain and had little or no contusion if I happened to be wearing a bike helmet.

Just because you get hit by a car going 30mph doesn't mean your head will impact going 30mph. If you are hit from behind and you are traveling 20mph, the net impact is only 10mph if you get hit directly on the head. What will probably happen is that you get hit by the car, then hit the ground or some other object. The helmet will protect you from this lesser impact to some degree. That may just means that you don't get a bump on your head or you just end up with no road rash. Life saver? Probably not. But it will have some positive benefit.

and pigs might fly too.

How is it you think a helmet made to protect children from simple falls with no involvement with cars, is also able to protect adults traveling in traffic and being hit by cars?

The same way a glove protects your hands during a fall. I would much rather be wearing a helmet when my head scrapes along the roadway at 30 mph than not. I would much rather be wearing a helmet when my head launches through some moron's windshield than not.

I was once hit on the head by a falling two car garage door. That was very, very painful. I would been in much less pain and had little or no contusion if I happened to be wearing a bike helmet.

Just because you get hit by a car going 30mph doesn't mean your head will impact going 30mph. If you are hit from behind and you are traveling 20mph, the net impact is only 10mph if you get hit directly on the head. What will probably happen is that you get hit by the car, then hit the ground or some other object. The helmet will protect you from this lesser impact to some degree. That may just means that you don't get a bump on your head or you just end up with no road rash. Life saver? Probably not. But it will have some positive benefit.

We need to decide that driving is a privilege and not a right. We need better testing, better in car testing, and I would say even testing on a closed circuit track with obstacles. And the same type of testing every 10 years, instead of once when your 18 driving under 30mph. How about more expensive staggered license fees for driver that want to drive faster. I understand the let google drive you car thing but don't like and don't think it's helping, it will become a crutch and what happens when it fails and you plow into something, who do you blame then. How about lobbying, not for more laws, but for enforcement of existing laws and regulations. How about instead of turning our heads and looking away, lets hold each other up and hold each other accountable for our actions (I know we in this forum are pretty good about it individually and even collectively, but we have children, and friends that my not see it that way).

And lets STOP having the damn helmet discussion.

One slight problem I have with the idea that people view driving as a right is that so often in the news there is an incident which involves a driver whose license was suspended, in short, he is told he isn't supposed to be driving, yet still he is driving. Laws are like guarantees of behavior, and a wise man once said that he can take a dump in a box and slap a guarantee on it if it'd make you feel better. You will never be able to design the ******* out of the equation.



...reasonably increase enforcement to alter driver behavior. Elsewhere, I advocated automated enforcement. I think criminal penalties should be ramped up too to account for negligent driving that falls short of gross negligence. Three, we can hold on until Google -- or some other firm -- developes a computer that can drive a car.

A couple things I'd be leery of with those. Increasing penalties for momentary negligence might instead encourage hit-and-run behavior. While it may be true that we want people to be alert and never making mistakes, they happen. People get panicky if they think they're going to be punished -- just look at all the times people run from the cops. If anything, reducing the criminal impact of negligence, more specifically when the driver takes the responsibility of stopping and ensuring that aid is given/information is exchanged, should be the way to go.

Also, I would never want to have a computer in charge of a car, ever. Robotization of cars might be all nice and sci-fi-ish, but when you get down to it computers can only react to what they perceive, just like people. While driver negligence can result in nasty incidents, I think they'd be nothing to a computerized car getting a piece of malicious software in it and happily driving down a sidewalk instead of the road while locking the driver out of control of the vehicle.

That's a pretty broad brush, even though I agree with the general notion. There are way too many scenarios to call it accurate though.

If I were hit from behind by a low-slung/profile car going that speed, chances are that my 63cm frame is going to take the brunt of the hit and I'll mostly sail over the top of it.

Is that assuming you will have time to unclip your pedals and launch yourself upward? I mean seeing as so many people fall over at stop signs and lights. Oh ya and it won't be an SUV or truck even though they outnumber cars in many places.

What the heck does this thread have to do with the closed thread about five people killed in a head on in Cali?

What the Heck does this thread have to do with the closed thread about five people killed in a head on in Cali?

Read the Opening post, see the message: "5 motorcyclists were killed yesterday on an Imperial County Highway by an impatient driver who attempted to pass..."

Now vent rage about idiot motorists! Express grief over the fact that no matter what you as a cyclist do, idiot motorists can still trump you.

A couple things I'd be leery of with those. Increasing penalties for momentary negligence might instead encourage hit-and-run behavior. While it may be true that we want people to be alert and never making mistakes, they happen. People get panicky if they think they're going to be punished -- just look at all the times people run from the cops. If anything, reducing the criminal impact of negligence, more specifically when the driver takes the responsibility of stopping and ensuring that aid is given/information is exchanged, should be the way to go.

Also, I would never want to have a computer in charge of a car, ever. Robotization of cars might be all nice and sci-fi-ish, but when you get down to it computers can only react to what they perceive, just like people. While driver negligence can result in nasty incidents, I think they'd be nothing to a computerized car getting a piece of malicious software in it and happily driving down a sidewalk instead of the road while locking the driver out of control of the vehicle.

That crossed my mind: The point that if you make it so severe -- consider cattle rustling being a capital felony in the old west -- once you decide to steal cattle you might as well commit murder. Yes, despite egregious examples here and there, I think that by far most collisions are generally brief moments of stupidity, over confidence, and lost perspective. I don't think it will take a lot of get the lion's share of a deterrent effect.

Considering the gains in safety and efficiency, as well as the present performance of people versus computers in tedious tasks like driving, the scenario of a runaway car and its effects seem unlikely and small in comparison. But YMMV.

What the heck does this thread have to do with the closed thread about five people killed in a head on in Cali?

The incident in question occured in California, not Colombia.

The reality is I don't think about "what happens after". I'll deal with it or be dead - either way, worrying about it now won't affect what happens then.

And let's be REAL. A 3-foot law, for example, means NOTHING to a driver while actually driving (including myself). No one I know carries a 3 foot ruler strapped to either the right or left side of the vehicle being driven. It's always going to be an "eyeballed" measurement. If a driver gives "3 feet" of room, it'll be a coincidence or a complete abdication by the car driver...not an adherence to the law, per se.

Laws, in general, also don't do sh** to protect anyone. They certainly don't prevent being right hooked, t-boned, or blown around by 18-wheeler drafts. How often do you see drivers change lanes/turn without signalling? What about texting while driving in states that have laws against that? Talking on the phone? Speeding? Reaching over the seat to quiet/correct a kid? I'm pretty dang sure that there are laws aginst those things too. Laws do not PREVENT bad driving behavior - only identify that which CAN BE grounds for "criminal" legal action.

Helmet laws don't prevent injuries or death - they only make those who wear them feel more secure before accidents. I'm pretty damn sure Sonny Bono's helmet didn't stop him from dying after skiing into that tree did it? Or that Kennedy kid doing the same thing? Admittedly those were skiing accidents, but the central idea to the argument is consistent. Certain laws are "feel good" laws. Laws, by themselves, don't change anything.

I ride defensively, but not overly so. I ride aggressively, but not rudely. I take the lane when appropriate - which is far less often than lots of riders I see as just obnoxious, ill-mannered idiots. My legal and moral rights to the road are outweighed by a ton or more of metal that hits me, if/when it does. There's no realistic counter-argument to that. If I'm dead/seriously injured, arguing that "I had the right of way/he was at fault" won't bring me back to life or make any pain go away.

So, "change my world"? Add weight to it? Pffft. Dumb question - I already said I'm a fatalist.

Nice rant, though I was looking for a more direct and to the point answer instead of having to sift through a pile of verbal detritus.

Enjoy your fatalist sensibilities.

The same way a glove protects your hands during a fall. I would much rather be wearing a helmet when my head scrapes along the roadway at 30 mph than not. I would much rather be wearing a helmet when my head launches through some moron's windshield than not...

but the thing is that helmets are made to fail catastrophically beyond its limits. Beyond that max 12 mph impact it cannot provide any more protection. It is also not intended for impacts in which either or both impact surfaces are moving. The notion of being hit from behind at 20 mph is only a 10 mph impact is more than a bit innocent.

If people think a helmet is effective in collisions with motor vehicles, they are sadly mistaken.

I think genecs point is a good one and a good sense of mortality is healthy. I also think there should be more focus on behavior than there is now. We have to manage to reduce collisions and that is the more effective way of reducing injury. Management that might mean it will be more difficult and more expensive to drive

but the thing is that helmets are made to fail catastrophically beyond its limits. Beyond that max 12 mph impact it cannot provide any more protection. It is also not intended for impacts in which either or both impact surfaces are moving. The notion of being hit from behind at 20 mph is only a 10 mph impact is more than a bit innocent.

If people think a helmet is effective in collisions with motor vehicles, they are sadly mistaken.

I think genecs point is a good one and a good sense of mortality is healthy. I also think there should be more focus on behavior than there is now. We have to manage to reduce collisions and that is the more effective way of reducing injury. Management that might mean it will be more difficult and more expensive to drive

Innocent? It is basic math. 30-20=10

Yes, we need to reduce collisions by focusing on vehicular cycling and the focus on helmets as the be all end all, needs to stop. But to say that they have zero, zilch, nada, effect is completely inaccurate. To say that they have a slight, modest effect in low speed impacts is accurate. Not all car collisions occur at a dead on 50 mph. Cyclists or the motorist might have time to brake before an impact. The impact may only be at a dozen MPH. They might only get a glancing blow instead of a head on impact. Their head may not even be involved in the initial impact, but rather a second or tertiary impact with the ground or some other object at a slower speed.

Cool. An idiot motorist thread and a helmet thread all in one!

While I'm all for tighter, even automated enforcement of the rules of the road, and stiffer penalties for repeat offenders, I hold no false hopes of any of it making much of a difference in safety. People are still going to get distracted, be inattentive, and /or get impatient and take unnecessary risks no matter what. Probably peak oil will make more of a difference by reducing motor vehicle traffic drastically. But then people will be dying from other stuff.

Cool. An idiot motorist thread and a helmet thread all in one!

While I'm all for tighter, even automated enforcement of the rules of the road, and stiffer penalties for repeat offenders, I hold no false hopes of any of it making much of a difference in safety. People are still going to get distracted, be inattentive, and /or get impatient and take unnecessary risks no matter what. Probably peak oil will make more of a difference by reducing motor vehicle traffic drastically. But then people will be dying from other stuff.

Can we bring guns into it too for the ultimate trifecta? How about if we just shoot repeat offenders on the spot.

Can we bring guns into it too for the ultimate trifecta? How about if we just shoot repeat offenders on the spot.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I suppose that would be ok as long as the shooters aren't cyclists wearing lycra.

While I'm all for tighter, even automated enforcement of the rules of the road, and stiffer penalties for repeat offenders, I hold no false hopes of any of it making much of a difference in safety. People are still going to get distracted, be inattentive, and /or get impatient and take unnecessary risks no matter what. Probably peak oil will make more of a difference by reducing motor vehicle traffic drastically. But then people will be dying from other stuff.

I like to think of driver attention and care as random variables. We can change the incentives that drivers face such that inattention and carelessness are more penalized and enforced in a manner tailored for how the brain works. But nonetheless people are people and sometimes act in strange ways. Hence, from an outside observer's perspective, there is some randomness in this behavior.

In short, I concur with the highlighted phrase above; but I believe that we can limit the frequency and magnitude that driver inattention and carelessness passes an unacceptable threshold -- change the mean and variance of those random variables -- resulting in safer roads.

[QUOTE=drmweaver2;11785962]I try really hard to stay out of threads like this because they tend to become pointless rants against someone-not-thinking-as-I-do.
Sh** happens. People die. Assigning blame and getting retribution or punishing "offenders" don't bring the dead back to life nor heal all wounds.
I'm a fatalist. I'm going to be hit or have a bike accident eventually. It's going to happen. I accept it without being non-chalant about it.
That allows me to ride without the weight of the world's worries, injustices and pain on my shoulders. It also allows me to sleep well at night.

This happens to be my life philosophy. I do everything on this basis. That said, I don't own a car, and have driven less than 10,000 miles in the last ten years combined. I also no longer live in the US, and the traffic situation there astonishes me every time I visit. Living in México allows me to be a lot more relaxed, in all aspects of my life.

Nice rant, though I was looking for ...Oh? You want to pick and choose not only who responds but what they say? Hah. Best laugh I've had all day.

And it was far from a rant. It was a direct, on point, response.