Commuting - Are motorists the enemy?

In thread after thread, post after post, I read all this whining and complaining about evil and moronic motorists.

Are they really that bad?

Can't we all just get along?

In thread after thread, post after post, I read all this whining and complaining about evil and moronic motorists.

Are they really that bad?

Can't we all just get along?


I'll post despite the risk of falling into another one your VC trolling threads.:rolleyes:

Judging by the numerous headlines about auto accidents in the newspapers everyday and the fact that road rage is often a factor, I'd lean towards an answer of yes to the first question. There are good drivers out there, but there are many bad ones too. The same can be said for cyclists, however the consequences of poor cycling don't often result in the same sort of damage as poor driving.

I would pose the second question to the motorists as it seems many of them are the ones that have a problem sharing the road.

Your asking can't we all get along (with motorists), but the fact is we cyclists can't even get along with each other very well as evident by the battles going on in some of these threads.

Are they really that bad??

Yes.


Can't we all just get along?

No.

Motorists aren't the enemy. SOME motorists are. These motorists are the minority, but they, like the rest, are wielding a two-ton projectile. Look out!

Motoring culture is the enemy. It's much harder to defeat than any motorist. Sort of like the boss at the end of a level of a video game.

Welcome to the next level.

Yes, Nick, there are stories about crashes all the time. We just had another cyclist death in San Diego today.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20050203-9999-7m3bike.html

The article doesn't point out that that's a signalled intersection, and so it's pretty clear that either the motorist or the cyclist ran the red light.

The reality is that some motorists run red lights some of the time.
It's also true that some cyclists run red lights some of the time.

The question is what can we do about it?
I say there is nothing we can do about some motorists running red lights some of the time. It's going to happen, no matter what anyone does.
Same with the cyclists: except for one: oneself.

That's right, the only control we have here is ourselves, and in most cases, that's enough. In other words, the type of bike-car collisions that are truly unavoidable are extremely rare.

Regardless of who ran the red light in this case, for example, the cyclist could have prevented it either by not running the light himself, or not assuming it was safe to enter the intersection just because he had the green.

Now let's reconsider your statement:



Judging by the numerous headlines about auto accidents in the newspapers everyday and the fact that road rage is often a factor, ...
I think "judging by the numerous headlines about auto accidents in the newspapers everyday" gives one a very skewed view of how safe it really is out there. It makes it seem it's much more dangerous than it really is, primarily because the articles about each collision almost never even explore the issue of how preventable it was.

As to the "fact that roage rage is often a factor"... often? Really? Or is that just another skewed perception thanks to the newspapers and 11 o'clock news? Besides, even road rage is preventable, by not doing anything to escalate matters when there are conflicts. Road rage is already very rare, but it's even more rare for it to be aimed at someone who is behaving reasonably and respectfully.

I just think all this focus on bad motorists is misplaced. Each cyclist's focus with respect to judging and improving behavior should be on himself and his own behavior.

By the way, how has that busy interchange section been going on your commute?

Serge

In thread after thread, post after post, I read all this whining and complaining about evil and moronic motorists.

Are they really that bad?

Can't we all just get along?


Nice post, Serge......He says........Trying to get along...... :o

There's whining and complaining because they ARE evil and moronic.

No !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>

Motorists as individuals are not our enemy, but there is something insidious about the motor culture that causes certain motorists to be a threat. The idea that streets are the domain of the automobile? The belief that the automobile is ALWAYS a superior choice for transportation? The segregation of people in motion into two camps - in cars and not in cars?

I'm not really sure, to be honest, exactly which aspect of the car culture it is that is causing problems. I don't think that the burden of reform really lies entirely with cyclists. Yeah, there's a lot that we can do to make things better by changing ourselves, but the fact is that there is a problem beyond just the sharing of motorways between thirty-pound human-powered vehicles and two-ton hydrocarbon-burning behemoths. Perhaps the problem is that we have a car culture, versus a transportation culture? The simple truth is that we need and will ALWAYS need a means of transporting ourselves and our good over short and long distances. We should re-evaluate what we're going to use for different transportation needs. We as Americans seem to be locked into the idea that the automobile is the solution for every transportation problem that we need to deal with. The truth is that it is in many cases (not all! Cars most definitely have a place!) a very poor choice. We should consider our transportation needs as part of the process of deciding where to live, not treat it as a tertiary after-the-fact consequence of our choice of housing.

Until we deal with the underlying factors that make life on the roads so difficult, no, we won't be able to get along. I have a bad feeling that it will take a while for us to get to the point where we can get along.

I usually feel they are the enemy and that is when I am out driving about in my car...Mabye only, if I could break my principals and own a Hummer or even a tank with a gun turret.

Yes, motorists are the enemy. Not only would they rather kill you than start their commute two minutes earlier, they'd rather fund terror and cause athsma than get fit.

Living in a place without public transit is no excuse - it's just poor civic planning.

(...And you thought only one member could troll-bait at a time? ;) )

-chris

Serge, you ever witness the roads in Miami? (note that I am from New York, and I think Miami is bad) It is an interesting question and I think Nick and Grolby written great posts in response. The car culture is something we are all paying for, but not always (if at all) benefiting from. There is an assumed attitude, a divine right of driving a car that we as bikers hinder. Until this perceived endowment , we won't get along. Like Grolby hinted at, drivers have the upper hand in their faster, heavier means of transport.

That said I guess I'll see if I am on Serge's Ignore list.

Serge, you ever witness the roads in Miami? (note that I am from New York, and I think Miami is bad)

God, yes. Miami is absolutely the worst place I've ever ridden. I've been of *freeways* in Jersey that were safer than side streets in Miami!

I would not go so far to say that motorists are the enemy any more than I would say that pidgeons are the enemy... hmm... wait... bad example. At anyrate, I consider motorists a hazard and not an enemy. A threat does not always equate to an enemy.

motorists are just there to have roads made so we can bike on them. other then that we have no need for them and they are nto needed (G)

I read all this whining and complaining about evil and moronic motorists.
It's nice to know that you do actually *read* the posts of other people. I was beginning to think you were a robotic text processer, after the fashion of Eliza, taking snippets of text and parroting them back with some slight, insidious trollish twist.



As to the "fact that road rage is often a factor"... often? Really? Or is that just another skewed perception thanks to the newspapers and 11 o'clock news?
Or... I take it back. Maybe "you" (assuming you are a human being and not some fiendish experiment on the part of Detroit) just throw random non-sequiters out there and then jump on random responses as a contrarian effort, regardless of content or intent. I mean, come on, Serge, you say...



.... the articles about each collision almost never even explore the issue of how preventable it was.
You seem to be assuming that in the case of any accident, it is the cyclist's fault, and that the media are somehow conspiring to protect bicyclists. What are the odds of that, Serge? Really?

I can just see the headline now: "Cyclist in middle of road side-swiped by intoxicated motorist." Will you be protesting the innocense of the driver from your traction get-up in the hospital? Show some spine! Stand up for your two-wheeled brethren!

In thread after thread, post after post, I read all this whining and complaining about evil and moronic motorists.

Are they really that bad?

Can't we all just get along?

yes they are and no we can't

Even if all motorists were "good" drivers I believe that vehicle driving is inherently unsafe and inevitably bound to lead to death and injury. Even good drivers are prone to error and the system doesn't allow for these with the inevitable result. If you add to this all the bad drivers (since anyone can get a licence there must be a lot) you can see where all the death and injury on our roads comes from.

Characterising drivers as evil and moronic doesn't really help matters because most drivers are not evil and moronic. They are just human and therefore error prone-preoccupied with their own lives-find it difficult to admit fault..etc.

The problem lies with the basic car/road system. No one has the power to change this and we just have to accept it and work with it (apparently).

It's pointless and frustrating to wish the world was different but sometimes I wish I could go back in time and shoot the guy who invented the car. Could this save more people than killing Hitler?

motorists are not the enemy CARS used when they are not needed are the enemy. the motorists are just sheep who haven't seen the light, some pretty angry sheep sometimes too.

BAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I see a number of cyclists each day on my commute. I have yet to see one stop for a stop sign or red light. I routinely see them pull right in front of cars, in effect daring the car to hit them. Yes, I have had the rare close call with a car and even hit a car that slowed for a stop sign then unexpectedly pulled in front of me. But I don't consider cars the enemy.

We have become a nation of selfish boors in every aspect of our society. That downward spiral in civility and respect for the common good is the enemy.

Motorists as individuals are not our enemy, but there is something insidious about the motor culture that causes certain motorists to be a threat. The idea that streets are the domain of the automobile? The belief that the automobile is ALWAYS a superior choice for transportation? The segregation of people in motion into two camps - in cars and not in cars?

I'm not really sure, to be honest, exactly which aspect of the car culture it is that is causing problems. I don't think that the burden of reform really lies entirely with cyclists. Yeah, there's a lot that we can do to make things better by changing ourselves, but the fact is that there is a problem beyond just the sharing of motorways between thirty-pound human-powered vehicles and two-ton hydrocarbon-burning behemoths. Perhaps the problem is that we have a car culture, versus a transportation culture? The simple truth is that we need and will ALWAYS need a means of transporting ourselves and our good over short and long distances. We should re-evaluate what we're going to use for different transportation needs. We as Americans seem to be locked into the idea that the automobile is the solution for every transportation problem that we need to deal with. The truth is that it is in many cases (not all! Cars most definitely have a place!) a very poor choice. We should consider our transportation needs as part of the process of deciding where to live, not treat it as a tertiary after-the-fact consequence of our choice of housing.

Until we deal with the underlying factors that make life on the roads so difficult, no, we won't be able to get along. I have a bad feeling that it will take a while for us to get to the point where we can get along.

Wow, what an awesome post. I agree with everything said here.

I think "judging by the numerous headlines about auto accidents in the newspapers everyday" gives one a very skewed view of how safe it really is out there. It makes it seem it's much more dangerous than it really is, primarily because the articles about each collision almost never even explore the issue of how preventable it was.

As to the "fact that roage rage is often a factor"... often? Really? Or is that just another skewed perception thanks to the newspapers and 11 o'clock news? Besides, even road rage is preventable, by not doing anything to escalate matters when there are conflicts. Road rage is already very rare, but it's even more rare for it to be aimed at someone who is behaving reasonably and respectfully.

The only thing I can suggest is to get off your bike & park your butt near a busy intersection during the rush hour commute. Take a look at the impatience of the drivers and the variety of dangerous maneuvers that will be done in order to save a couple of seconds. Whether I'm right or wrong, I lump driver impatience into the same category as road rage. See it with your own eyes. Something happens to otherwise rational people when they get behind the wheel of a car. I'm guilty of it myself. Who has never tailgated in their life? That's one of the most dangerous things you can do while driving, yet it's done all of the time. I had a job several years ago that required me to be on the road for about 6-7 hours a day. I also responded to mva's for hazmat cleanup. The things I witnessed daily confirmed to me that road rage & impatience was the cause of many accidents. Take a day off, sit in traffic court and listen to the descriptions of the violations. You may change your mind about the number of poor and/or angry motorists there are out there.



By the way, how has that busy interchange section been going on your commute?

I go through two busy intersections on my commute. I generally time my approach to them so that I arrive when the light has turned green and most of the waiting cars have already passed through. They're generally not a problem. Maybe you're thinking of someone else?

Motoring culture is the enemy. It's much harder to defeat than any motorist. Sort of like the boss at the end of a level of a video game.Welcome to the next level.

Thank you. Life is so much easier to figure out, when you reduce it to the video game model. Lets see, I'm pac-man, getting chased by powerful monsters, as I race around on streets, getting nowhere. Crystal clear. Hey, where's the boss that you're talking about? Don't tell me that it's going to get even worse!

Absolutely Not!

Motorists are just people - people do stupid things, act agressive, are courteous, care about others, have no regard for others, get distracted, sleepy, etc. I find on a daily basis both good and unpleasant interactions with people, both when they are in and out of a vehicle.

I do believe that there is a general lack of respect for the responsbilities that driving a car entails. I've felt this way long before I started cycling on roads. I believe that if there was a shift in culture that resulted in people driving responsibly that auto accident rates would be at least cut in half.

I also think that there is a pattern on these forums to by hyper sensitive to what drivers do - for example that immediate reaction that a driver that pulls in front on you and causes you to have to slow a bit is out to get you or in total disregard for cyclists - when in fact they would do this whether you are a cyclist or not. Part of using the roads safety is the need to ride/drive defensively and be prepared for unexpected (or actually expected) circumstances.

Al

NO - cagers are not the enemy. IDIOTS are the enemy.

Idiot cagers.
Idiot bikers.
Idiot peds.

In my experience the Idiot percentage is about the same in all 3 categories - very low. But they sure cause a lot of grief.

I don't feel like cars are the enemy. But I'll say this. I definitely act more rudely and aggressively when driving than I do any other time. I'm sure I'm not the only one to change, as mentioned by some other posts here. It's something about being isolated from each other. Like I see the other cars as being some lifeless phemomenon, and so I don't respect them like I would another person.

But I never have a problem biking. Not any more than I would if I were driving.

Car culture is the enemy, hence most motorists.

We can get along if getting along means kowtowing at the wheels of the cagers, grateful for what little crumbs they deign to throw us.

Rainman says he sees most cyclists not stopping at red lights..Yeah, I probably see about as many cyclists acting as responsible as the percentage of motororists who drive crazy..
Most cyclists. Don't agree...Are we suicidal too...Our puny flesh against a ton of steel...
I catagorized most cyclists as the enemy..In keeping with my informal poll based on what I observed..I would say about 25-30% of motorists act like they think they are in a Nascar race.
The rage we see on the rode and in our daily lives of anti-human behavior ...A very believable number..
But enough of the motoring public to put fear into my life whether cycling or driving.

... the articles about each collision almost never even explore the issue of how preventable it was.
You seem to be assuming that in the case of any accident, it is the cyclist's fault, and that the media are somehow conspiring to protect bicyclists. What are the odds of that, Serge? Really?

The odds of that are irrelevant since I'm not assuming that at all. It is not for me to judge why newspapers choose to report the basics they learn about collisions from the police and not doing any investigation themselves. Probably there is insufficient public interest to warrant it. In any case, my point is that investigation is not done, and, therefore, not reported. It's not a conspiracy.

Furthermore, I keep getting in trouble for allegedly saying it's the cyclist's fault. Well, that's not what I'm trying to say, but I don't know how to convey that I believe a certain incident was preventable by the cyclist without it sounding like I'm faulting the cyclist.

I believe that the vast majority of all car-bike collisions could be prevented by the cyclist. If I'm right, that should be great news for cyclists. That means we have much more control and much less to fear than most cyclists seem to think and feel we have. It's empowerment, and that's what I'm trying to convey, though I'm obviously not doing a very good job of it. My approach is to point out the preventability factor in almost all of the incidents discussed in these forums. But this approach backfires on me, where I'm often accused of blaming the cyclist. Not sure how to get past this. Suggestions?




I can just see the headline now: "Cyclist in middle of road side-swiped by intoxicated motorist." Will you be protesting the innocense of the driver from your traction get-up in the hospital? Show some spine! Stand up for your two-wheeled brethren!
When I say the vast majority of car-bike collisions could have been prevented by the cyclist, I don't mean ALL car-bike collisions could have been prevented by the cyclist. There will always be the truly unpreventable (by the cyclist) tragedies, but these amount to a fraction of a fraction of all car-bike collisions. Yet we seem to focus on them instead of doing what we can to reduce the 99+% of the car-bike collisions over which we do have the ability to prevent. Why?

To start with, more than half of all car-bike collisions are actually caused by the cyclist. Those are all entirely within the realm of prevention by the cyclist, obviously.
Further, if you look at the causes of the remaining car-bike collisions, while they involve motorist fault (like motorist running a red light), they are also almost always preventable by the cyclist if the cyclist rides according to well-known techniques, such as those taught in a League of American Bicyclist's Road 1 course (like not assuming a green light means it is safe to enter an intersection).

When we've gotten cyclists to ride safely and have reduced car-bike collisions to less than 1% of what we have now (from around 700 U.S. cyclist fatalities per year to about 7 per year), then we can focus on trying to reduce the number of collisions that we had no way of preventing, if we think it's still even possible. But we have a long way to go before we have to face that decision.

In short, by focusing on ourselves -- cyclist behavior -- we can probably save over 600 of the approximate 700 cyclist lives lost per year. I think it's closer to 690 of the 700, but why quibble? To anyone who has studied car-bike collision statistics it's clearly the vast majority that are preventable by the cyclist. By focusing on the motorists, it's unclear that we can save the lives of any cyclists. To me, it's clear where we should be focusing.

I believe that the vast majority of all car-bike collisions could be prevented by the cyclist.


You're absolutely right - all it would take is for every cyclist in the world to give up, buy a trainer, and refuse to leave his house. Unfortunately, so long as we continue to share space with drivers, we're going to be murdered by drivers - that's all there is to it!


To start with, more than half of all car-bike collisions are actually caused by the cyclist.


Source?


By focusing on the motorists, it's unclear that we can save the lives of any cyclists.


Absolutely untrue. All it takes - and studies of law-enforcement in ALL areas back this up - is enforcement of existing law. We are protected under the law, and if we could overcome exisiting anti-cyclist bias and get those laws enforced, lives would be saved and injuries prevented.

all it would take is for every cyclist in the world to give up, buy a trainer, and refuse to leave his house.
That's not what I meant. What I mean was that all it would take is for every cyclist to ride according to the methods taught in the League of American Bicyclist's Road 1 courses.



Source?
LAB Road 1 course. http://www.bikeleague.org



All it takes - and studies of law-enforcement in ALL areas back this up - is enforcement of existing law.
Oh, that's all? Law enforcement prevents motorists from breaking laws? Where do you live? Sometimes motorists knowingly violate the law, but motorists are human, and they often feel they have a good excuse, or actually make mistakes. There is nothing we can do to prevent that, short of changing human nature. What we can do is change our own behavior as cyclists, which will prevent the vast majority of all car-bike collisions.

Law enforcement prevents motorists from breaking laws?

Law enforcement greatly reduces lawbreaking, just as our current culture of absolute zero enforcement encourages drivers to break the law - as you mentioned, drivers are only human, and humans by their nature are more likely to act badly when they know there will be no consequences.

Again, I encourage all cyclists to ride defensively. But pretending that doing so reduces risk by 99%, as you do, does a great injustice to all those who have been hit, injured, or killed by aggressive or outright homicidal drivers. It's simply not the case that all or close to all accidents can be avoided through defensive riding, and to pretend otherwise is to defend the notion that driver behavior is irrelevant. If the roads are to be made safe for cyclists, we MUST enforce existing provisions against criminal drivers - and that's a step we seem unwilling to take.

Thank you. Life is so much easier to figure out, when you reduce it to the video game model. Lets see, I'm pac-man, getting chased by powerful monsters, as I race around on streets, getting nowhere. Crystal clear. Hey, where's the boss that you're talking about? Don't tell me that it's going to get even worse!

Life is not a video game. If it were, we'd all be running around in a seemingly endless maze thinking we've been there before at every corner, randomly popping pills, looking to pop the odd cherry and getting chased by ghosts... oh... wait. :D

Video game... think RESET! Or better yet, use the EASY setting.

Again, I encourage all cyclists to ride defensively. But pretending that doing so reduces risk by 99%, as you do, does a great injustice to all those who have been hit, injured, or killed by aggressive or outright homicidal drivers.
I'm not pretending. It's true that riding defensively can reduce the risk by 99%. By the way, motorist defensive driving classes teach that 100% of all collisions are preventable by either driver. That's essentially all I'm saying. Why are you so resistant to accepting this?



It's simply not the case that all or close to all accidents can be avoided through defensive riding,
Yes, it is the case that close to all accidents can be avoided through defensive riding. If you don't know that, you should learn about it.



and to pretend otherwise is to defend the notion that driver behavior is irrelevant.
As far as I'm concerned, motorist behavior is irrelevant to my safety. I'm telling you right here and now, I understand that if I'm ever involved in a car-bike collision, that I will have made a mistake that's a significant factor in the cause of that collision (such that the collision would have been avoided had I not made that mistake). I take motorist behavior as a given over which I have considerably more influence than most cyclists realize we have, but no control. Most drivers are pretty good, some make mistakes. I do my best to be prepared, which eliminates my vulnerability to the vast majority (my estimate based on statistics I've studied is 99%) of potential collisions.



If the roads are to be made safe for cyclists, we MUST enforce existing provisions against criminal drivers - and that's a step we seem unwilling to take.
I strongly disagree with this statement. I realize most cyclists agree with it, but I think it does a tremendous disservice to cycling and cyclists by focusing us on a very small part of the problem over which we have very little control: motorist behavior.

Instead, I suggest we focus on something that can solve almost of all the problem (cyclists getting injured and killed in car-bike collisions) and over which cyclists happen to have 100% control: cyclist behavior.

Let me try to word it like this: Studies of car-bike collisions show that in over half of all car-bike collisions cyclist behavior is at fault. That alone makes my case. But, even in almost all of the remaining cases where motorist behavior is primarily at fault, cyclist behavior is a factor to a degree such that cyclist behavior alone could have prevented the collision. Since we have 100% control of cyclist behavior, I suggest we focus on that part of the equation.

If you want to pretend that the above is not true, go ahead. But don't accuse me of pretending.

Serge *******, I have to say I like your way of thinking. Rather than try to play the whiney victim, the oppressed, the downtrodden... that which we so often argue against being cast in the first place, you've approached the problem with an intent to assume your responsibility in taking control of the situation. And yes, I am total agreement with you that the number one safety enhancement device is yourself. In the aviation world there is the concept of Pilot-In-Command (PIC) which carries with it a very large amount of responsibility. Essentially the entire safety of flight is assumed by the PIC. It's been shown that there really are very little cases of true unforseeable aviation accidents... only a failure of the PIC.

In thread after thread, post after post, I read all this whining and complaining about evil and moronic motorists.

Are they really that bad?

Can't we all just get along?

Well, they are just one notch worse than bicycle racers . . . then there are Segway users . . . all three of them. They deserve a special place in hell.

Serge *******, I have to say I like your way of thinking. Rather than try to play the whiney victim, the oppressed, the downtrodden... that which we so often argue against being cast in the first place, you've approached the problem with an intent to assume your responsibility in taking control of the situation. And yes, I am total agreement with you that the number one safety enhancement device is yourself. In the aviation world there is the concept of Pilot-In-Command (PIC) which carries with it a very large amount of responsibility. Essentially the entire safety of flight is assumed by the PIC. It's been shown that there really are very little cases of true unforseeable aviation accidents... only a failure of the PIC.
Thank you, Khuon. After the first sentence, I was waiting for the other shoe to drop, but it never did. Wow, somebody gets what I'm trying to say. Your PIC analogy is very good. Perhaps we can develop the concept of CIC - Cycling-In-Command?

I don't think anyone would argue with the fact that a pilot's job is much more difficult and complicated than that of a cyclist in traffic. Yet we still hold the pilot responsible for almost anything bad that happens to his or her airplane.

It's easy to lose sight of this when you know that the factors threatening cyclists are also in the control of other humans (motorists). But this shouldn't matter. Whether the threat is a force of nature (gravity, weather, air turbulence, etc.) or a force that happens to be piloted by a human (a Ford Expedition), you must be responsible for what happens to you. And telling cyclists that their destiny is out of their control, that it is in the hands of incompetent motorists, is disempowering and very unfair to cyclists.

Cyclists are not sitting ducks out there. And anyone who says or implies otherwise (like saying cyclists need bike lanes to be safe, for example) is not a cycling advocate, in my book.

Yes, it is the case that close to all accidents can be avoided through defensive riding. If you don't know that, you should learn about it.

Accidents are avoidable; assault is not. My argument is that defensive riding is no defense against criminal vehicular assault, and that a significant percentage of cyclist injuries and deaths are as a result of criminal behavior on the part of motorists.



If the roads are to be made safe for cyclists, we MUST enforce existing provisions against criminal drivers - and that's a step we seem unwilling to take.


I strongly disagree with this statement.

I read your statement as "I do not believe criminal motorists deserve to be held responsible for their acts." If that's not your intended meaning, please clarify.





Let me try to word it like this: Studies of car-bike collisions show that in over half of all car-bike collisions cyclist behavior is at fault. That alone makes my case.


No, until you can provide sources for this information, it doesn't make your case at all. It's very easy to make these claims, but simply parroting "I heard it in class" again and again does not factual basis make.

It is true that cyclists are at least partially at fault in a significant number of auto/bicycle collisions - I agree with you there completely. However, your argument that cyclists are ALWAYS responsible, even when a motorist has committed an overt criminal act, strikes me as deeply insulting - akin to the old right-wing gambit that claimed **** victims "asked for it" by travelling alone after dark, or by wearing dresses, or by having previously engaged in premarital sex. Put simply: we are NOT a second class of citizen, and I for one cannot support a blame-the-victim mentality when it comes to our safety.

I don't think anyone would argue with the fact that a pilot's job is much more difficult and complicated than that of a cyclist in traffic. Yet we still hold the pilot responsible for almost anything bad that happens to his or her airplane.

Absolutely... except that when an aircraft is downed by a hijacker or a shoulder-mounted missile, nobody blames the pilot for failing to take evasive maneuvers. Again: my argument is NOT that defensive cycling is worthless; it's just not a cure-all.


Cyclists are not sitting ducks out there. And anyone who says or implies otherwise (like saying cyclists need bike lanes to be safe, for example) is not a cycling advocate, in my book.

Agreed - in fact, at least in New York, bike lanes contribute heavily to cyclist injuries - motorists like to use them to gun around stopped traffic, and cabbies like to use them to discharge passengers. Unfortunately, since there is no enforcement of the laws that are supposed to prevent such behavior, cyclists who ride in them pay a heavy price. In my book, anyone who claims that motorists who engage in such criminal behavior deserve to go scot-free is no kind of cycling advocate.

Absolutely... except that when an aircraft is downed by a hijacker or a shoulder-mounted missile, nobody blames the pilot for failing to take evasive maneuvers. Again: my argument is NOT that defensive cycling is worthless; it's just not a cure-all.

Believe it or not even in such situations a blame can be made against the PIC. Did the PIC do enough to screen the passengers? Did the PIC do enough to plan the route to avoid potentially hostile airspace or take appropriate action knowing the threat level within the flight path? Did the PIC ensure that the aircraft had enough internal security to protect against a hijacking? These are all the things that will get nit-picked over. There's an FAR (91.13) which essentially blames the PIC by default. Yes, TSA is supposed to screen passengers. Yes, flight routes are supposed to be chosen to avoid free-fire missile zones but ultimately, it doesn't matter because the sole responsibility falls on the PIC. The buck stops there. When in the air, the PIC is considered God and has to succumb to that burden of responsibility. This is how pilots live... everything falls on their shoulders. They cannot shrug off the responsibility. My flight instructor told me that a pilot once assuming the role of PIC whether tooling around the field in a Piper Cub or if left-seating a 747 with 300 souls onboard should always act as a professional. This is how I've approached driving as well... and cycling.

motorists are not the enemy. the people who don't drive properly are the enemy. also people with large vehicles suck. unless they use them for something anyway. something that requires such a large vehicle.

My argument is that defensive riding is no defense against criminal vehicular assault, and that a significant percentage of cyclist injuries and deaths are as a result of criminal behavior on the part of motorists.
A significant percentage? Do you have any basis on which to claim that "criminal vehicular assault" accounts for even anything close to 1% of car-bike collisions?

And in instances of "criminal vehicular assault" car-bike collisions, what percentage of that tiny percentage involved the cyclist riding legally and respectfully?


I read your statement as "I do not believe criminal motorists deserve to be held responsible for their acts." If that's not your intended meaning, please clarify.
That's not my meaning. I'm saying that if you elminated ALL instances of collisions caused by criminal acts of motorists, it would hardly make a dent on the total number of instances of car-bike collisions.


No, until you can provide sources for this information, it doesn't make your case at all.
Fair enough. I will look for the information online, or maybe somebody else will post them. But these are well-known numbers in the cycling field, echoed by the likes of John Forester (author of the book "Effective Cycling") all the way to Jeffrey Hiles (author of "Listening to Bike Lanes", an essay you can find on-line, who tries to argue with some of Forester's contentions, but largely accepts the numbers and studies underlying them).

Anyone with a serious interest in the field of cycling transportation and safety should make himself familar with all of this.



However, your argument that cyclists are ALWAYS responsible, even when a motorist has committed an overt criminal act, strikes me as deeply insulting - akin to the old right-wing gambit that claimed **** victims "asked for it" by travelling alone after dark, or by wearing dresses, or by having previously engaged in premarital sex. Put simply: we are NOT a second class of citizen, and I for one cannot support a blame-the-victim mentality when it comes to our safety.
I'm not saying they're ALWAYS responsible, I'm saying they could almost always have prevented the collision had they been adhering to well-known behavior such as that taught in LAB's Road 1 course, and explained in books such as Forester's "Effective Cycling", John Franklin's "CycleCraft", as well as John Allen's "Street Smarts". Amazon is your friend...

It's not a blame-the-victim mentality; if that's how you see it, you're missing the point.
It's an empower-the-cyclist mentality.



In my book, anyone who claims that motorists who engage in such criminal behavior deserve to go scot-free is no kind of cycling advocate.
A taxi stopping in a bike lane to discharge customers is criminal behavior? That's not even illegal in CA, unless there happens to be an explicit "no parking in bike lane" sign posted. I'm beginning to understand the source of one of our differences...

Anyway, my point is that smart traffic cycling includes prudent limited use of bike lanes which is part of the whole array of cycling behavior, that, when followed, inocculates the cyclist from being involved in the vast majority of car-bike collisions.


Again: my argument is NOT that defensive cycling is worthless; it's just not a cure-all.
Defensive cycling may not be a cure-ALL, but it's a cure-almost-all, and the alternative, attacking the motorist side of the problem is:
If it was 100% effective, would be a cure-small-portion, at best.
Highly unlikely to be effective at all, much less anywhere near 100%.


Why spend ANY time and resources and effort on a "cure" that is highly unlikely to help at all, and, even if it was fully effectively could only solve a small part of the problem, when you could spend that same effort on a cure that has the potential to solve almost the entire problem?

motorists are not the enemy. the people who don't drive properly are the enemy. also people with large vehicles suck. unless they use them for something anyway. something that requires such a large vehicle.


Like a bus, Merton?....Have you noticed how similar our names are?....& your avatar is practically a spitting image of me.....What's going on here?...


Merton.....I think I'm developing a fond :love: feeling for you.....

We have become a nation of selfish boors in every aspect of our society. That downward spiral in civility and respect for the common good is the enemy.

Couldn't have put it better myself...and I agree with the other statement made that motorists are a threat and not the enemy. The former can be a result of ignorance or poor judgement...the latter is usually malicious.

That downward spiral in civility and respect for the common good is the enemy

And that lack of respect comes from the *few* that are low caliber people. I agree 100%, but i wouldn't try and seperate the negitive energy from the people from who it comes. The enemy IS people. Not all, but those who choose to completely disregard the safety of others who may be on a bicycle simply because it's irritates them that they may have to slow down for a few seconds to avoid them. I understand that in a way because certain circumstances depending on the road and other factors can make it a bit of a hassle. But what pisses me off is that instead of realizing the cyclist has a right to be there and that this is just they way things are as much as a red light changing at the last moment, they take it out on the rideras tho he is purposly making the driver's commute a pain. Often the cyclist can do everythng in his power to make it as easy as possible for the driver and even thats not enough to satisfy them.

So in short, yes there are plenty of careless disrespecting jerks behind the wheel. Not all, but all too many as far as i'm concerned. It only takes one to make for a very bad day for the cyclist. I ride mostly on busy 4 lane roads, and if i had a nickel for all the times i've had cars who can easily see me shoot by me at 50mph missing me by inches i'd be living in a mansion in Malibu. Sometimes i could swear they actually get as close as possible on purpose. But RainmanP's post nailed it. Society in general is in a downward spiral that almost seems like we're closing in on the end times. At 51 it's even more obvious because i'm old enough to compare over a number of decades. It's not just about biking, it's everywhere. A sick society. It's sad.....

Frankly, Serge, I think our disagreements are less significant than they may appear - all they boil down to is a question of whether it's worthwhile to enforce existing law. I think it is - and I strongly suspect that if you or somebody you know fell victim to a criminal driver and was unable to get that driver prosecuted under the laws he'd broken, you might think the laws worth enforcing, too!


A significant percentage? Do you have any basis on which to claim that "criminal vehicular assault" accounts for even anything close to 1% of car-bike collisions?

Sure! Let's have a look at the meaning of the term "vehicular assault" under the law. In Washington, the law defines it as:

RCW 46.61.522
Vehicular assault -- Penalty.

(1) A person is guilty of vehicular assault if he or she operates or drives any vehicle:

(a) In a reckless manner and causes substantial bodily harm to another; or

(b) While under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, as defined by RCW 46.61.502, and causes substantial bodily harm to another; or

(c) With disregard for the safety of others and causes substantial bodily harm to another.


In New Hampshire, they say:

265:79-a Vehicular Assault. – Any person who, without intent, causes death or serious bodily injury as defined in RSA 625:11, VI to another while using a vessel or propelled vehicle as defined in RSA 637:9, III shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor, where such person's unlawful operation of the propelled vehicle or vessel causes or materially contributes to the collision. Evidence that the driver violated any of the rules of the road shall be prima facie evidence that the driver caused or materially contributed to the collision.
And most state laws are essentially similar... though it's a waste of time to hunt down and quote all 50 ;) The point of all this is that if a driver hits you while he's breaking ANY other traffic law - and ESPECIALLY if he's intoxicated, or if he's otherwise behaving with disregard for your safety, or acting intentionally to cause you harm - he's by definition guilty of vehicular assault. If you'd like, I can hunt for statistics as to exactly what percentage of automobile accidents involve violation of some chapter of motor vehicle law (including but not limited to things like speeding, failure to yield, failure to signal, operating a defective vehicle, etc), but I imagine it's quite high. In fairness, I'll concede that terms like "serious bodily injury" or "grievous bodily harm" are elsewhere generally defined as resulting in death or permanent disability... but even if we're talking only about accidents resulting in death, we're talking about a significant number of criminal vehicular assaults in which no charges are ever filed.



That's not my meaning. I'm saying that if you elminated ALL instances of collisions caused by criminal acts of motorists, it would hardly make a dent on the total number of instances of car-bike collisions.

Fair enough - though I continue to believe that illegal driving maneuvers are contributing causes to an awfully high percentage of collisions. And doing away with all vehicular assaults would pretty neatly do away with virtually all the cyclist fatalities, which I think would be swell ;)





I'm not saying they're ALWAYS responsible, I'm saying they could almost always have prevented the collision had they been adhering to well-known behavior such as that taught in LAB's Road 1 course, and explained in books such as Forester's "Effective Cycling", John Franklin's "CycleCraft", as well as John Allen's "Street Smarts". Amazon is your friend...

It's not a blame-the-victim mentality; if that's how you see it, you're missing the point.
It's an empower-the-cyclist mentality.

Yep, read 'em all. Well, I haven't taken the LAB course, but I have read the three books. And I agree completely that defensive cycling is good for cyclists - but true empowerment comes with equality under the law, and that means the drivers who murder us must be prosecuted.




A taxi stopping in a bike lane to discharge customers is criminal behavior? That's not even illegal in CA, unless there happens to be an explicit "no parking in bike lane" sign posted. I'm beginning to understand the source of one of our differences...


Yep. NYC traffic rules, para 4-12(p)(2) reads "No person shall drive a vehicle on or across a designated bicycle lane, except when it is reasonable and necessary:" to enter a driveway or legal curbside parking spot, cross an intersection, comply with a police officer, etc... "Notwithstanding any other rule, no person shall drive a vehicle on or across a designated bicycle lane in such a manner as to interfere with the safety and passage of persons operating bicycles thereon."

So, if a motorist crosses into a bike lane and seriously injures or kills a cyclist, it's... vehicular assault! And if a cabbie (or anybody else) double-parks in a bike lane, it's a criminal violation of the NYC VTL.



Why spend ANY time and resources and effort on a "cure" that is highly unlikely to help at all?

Because justice demands that the law be enforced.

Believe it or not even in such situations a blame can be made against the PIC. Did the PIC do enough to screen the passengers? Did the PIC do enough to plan the route to avoid potentially hostile airspace or take appropriate action knowing the threat level within the flight path? Did the PIC ensure that the aircraft had enough internal security to protect against a hijacking? These are all the things that will get nit-picked over. There's an FAR (91.13) which essentially blames the PIC by default.

Wow! That's hard-core. Myself, I'm going to continue quietly blaming the hijackers when hijacked planes go down... and I'm going to tack on a little time to be grateful that the laws applicable to cycling are a little more forgiving! ;)

Wow! That's hard-core. Myself, I'm going to continue quietly blaming the hijackers when hijacked planes go down... and I'm going to tack on a little time to be grateful that the laws applicable to cycling are a little more forgiving! ;)

There are mixed feelings over this of course. The intent of the FARs and the training given to pilots is meant to promote them to grab every ounce of control they can, check everything they can, motivating them to not settle for being a passive factour in the outcome of things. It's pretty much a common belief that having a neurotic obsessive compulsive anal personality is a good trait in a pilot. Yes, some things are simply beyond control but that shouldn't stop a good pilot from trying.

...the consequences of poor cycling don't often result in the same sort of damage as poor driving.
I gotta take issue with this. If some percentage of bicycle/auto accidents (I'll leave the wrangling over the exact number to others :)) are the result of the cyclist doing something wrong, then yes, the consequences of poor cycling can result in the same sort of damage. Last month, our small city had its first cyclist death that I've been aware of since I started commuting (2-1/2 years), and the guy was riding against traffic!

It is true that cyclists are at least partially at fault in a significant number of auto/bicycle collisions - I agree with you there completely. However, your argument that cyclists are ALWAYS responsible, even when a motorist has committed an overt criminal act, strikes me as deeply insulting - akin to the old right-wing gambit that claimed **** victims "asked for it" by travelling alone after dark, or by wearing dresses, or by having previously engaged in premarital sex. Put simply: we are NOT a second class of citizen, and I for one cannot support a blame-the-victim mentality when it comes to our safety.
I haven't read all the way to the end of this thread, so I don't know if Serge has responded to this directly or not, but I have a thought on it. To follow your analogy, I don't hear Serge blaming the victim at all, but saying that if we are afraid of being victims, the most effective way to empower ourselves against that possibility is by working on that which we have the most control over: our own behavior. In your **** analogy, that would mean we learn how to recognize and stay out of dangerous situations, learn self-defense, carry an alarm. If someone who is not doing these things does get raped, pointing out that maybe they wouldn't have been, had they been more prepared, is not the same thing as blaming them for it, and most certainly does not excuse the perpetrator. It's a fine point, but I don't know how to state it any more clearly than that.

Now I can see myself coming around to your point of view again. The "Take Back the Night" movement, as I understand it from a male observer's point of view, is all about refuting the idea that it is mostly the victim's responsibility to protect herself from sexual assault, instead of the rest of society's responsibility to provide a more protective environment. Perhaps Critical Mass is kind of the cycling world's equivalent of Take Back the Night. Moving back to the cycling world, I think you are saying that it is unfair to place the bulk of the responsibility on the party that is already at the disadvantage, and I can understand that. It's probably too simplistic to frame it as idealism (you) versus realism (Serge), but is it fair to say your positions tend in those directions?

Of course, this entire analogy only holds for those situations where the motorist clearly did something wrong, and we could argue all night about what percentage of accidents that is. (But I'm not going to. :))