It's people with attitudes like this.

This guy is commenting on the cyclist who was killed by the 19 year old downloading ringtones.
His attitude is that the cyclist is a fool to put himself in danger by being on the road.

Please read his blog https://scconfident.blogspot.com/2006...fool-that.html and then send him a comment, maybe post your comment here.

Addendum.
The guy has comment moderation on his blog so it is a waste of time to comment there. I will write my own blog in response a maybe include a few of your excellent comments.

Addendum 2 (12/5/06)

To give credit to Lee, the person who posted the South Carolina Confidential Blog; he did post 31 comments the vast majority of which were pro cyclist. He has posted a follow up post https://scconfident.blogspot.com/2006/12/to-clarify.html and states that the only ones he didn’t post contained threatening or foul language.

This meant that he did read them all, which is good. I think we got our point across; and although he dosen't concede on all points, he does on some. Thank you for all the highly intelligent comments, I was extremely touched by them all.

the comments I left cannot be posted here(little eyes might see them).

I think he deleted your comments

my comments involved him dying after being run over by the 19 year old driver.

Lee on 12/1:

"Share the road" is a fantasy that only exists in a Utopian world.

Lee on 11/28:

Common courtesy and simple politeness is, little by little, vanishing in American culture.


Nice disconnect there.

Yes the blogger is an idiot and an jerk.

And you may not want to hear this, but he has a BIT of a point. Yes we DO assume some major risk riding our bicycles on the road with cars. I'm not sure what's dumber, the blogger, or failing to understand the inherent risk in riding a road bike - and then getting an aneurism everytime the inevitable 'cyclist killed by car' incident goes down.

But I do refer you to my initial comment, the blogger is an idiot and a jerk. So consider that before you flame me for implying that you're vunerable to 4000 lb. cars on the roads you ride on. In fact, never mind, nothing can ever happen to YOU.

Obliviousness is bliss : ).

The hilarious thing is that this guy doesn't think he's assuming a risk by getting into his car and driving it.

Has anyone read the Time magazine article from last week about perceived risk and real risk? It looked interesting but I'm not a Time subscriber so I haven't found it yet...

Don't feed the troll (the blogger, not the OP!).

I'd love to see that Time article, Dr. P. Give a holler if you find it!

+1.

Thankfully 99.9% of drivers are very cool or we'd all be friggin DEAD.

Yes, we are vulnerable, but cycling is on the roadways is NOT a major risk...unless riding in oblivious bliss is your riding style. We're also vulnerable doing countless other things during the normal course of our lives...of which cycling doesn't even make the top ten - yet we do them anyway.

So what are the statistical odds of being killed while riding a bike? Isn't the average in the U.S. about 800 a year? It's probably a lot lower than your odds of dying from the flu. I hate this line of reasoning, because it's stupid. Yeah, we're exposed to a 2-ton plus vehicle, but what do you do about a silly microbe? Stay home? Didn't think so...

Another thing I hate are bloggers like this guy who have comment moderation enabled. Hey you wanna blog, then let us respond fairly, and post the comments! Otherwise stop wasting our time...

Ahh... I did. Interesting read. In many ways it would seem to support what many of us believe about cycling, i.e. that it's overall a pretty safe activity, and that the health benefits far outweigh the true risks. But because our psyche focuses on immediate things (getting run down by a motorist) we sort of ignore the comparatively tiny probability of that versus dying a long, protracted, painful death from, say, the complications of type 2 diabetes if you don't exercise.

Anyway, here it is--draw your own conclusions....
https://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...2978-1,00.html

Chipcom, you should totally check out this Time article I linked above--right up your alley!

i read it. very interesting article actually. they talk a lot about how feeling in control leads you to think you're safer. that's why many people feel safer driving than, say, flying. even though 44,000 people die per year in automobile accidents and only a few dozen die in airline travel.

they also talked about real and immediate dangers as opposed to hype. take heart disease, for example, which kills something like 600,000 people per year. then take the avian bird flu, or mad cow disease, which has killed 0 people in the US. you'd think more people would be concerned about taking care of their heart, but it's not the reality.

here's the Time story (should work):

https://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/26/cov....tm/index.html

What a tool. Rush and gang already have the shock jockery spots wrapped up. Get new material.


Maybe he'll get speed bumped on the way home by a rider, gotta get outta that car some time LOL

Just my observation
have a some non-cycling (in fact not athletic at all) friends and some day after few shots of vodka we started talking about cyclists and traffic and rights on the road - I was shocked how match they hate us. The only term they refer us is "Those idiots". Seriously, we few have cyclists in our company and we all are friends but when it comes to "share a road" - they just don't get it. And this is in Bay Area where on some roads you can see more cyclist than cars and supposedly tolerance level is pretty high.

Life is fatal 100% of the time. Do what you enjoy and stop being so darned scared.

Nice article, though it seems to avoid talking in detail about, what to me, is the number one factor in risk assessment/avoidance - your own common sense, experience, and yes, that 'primitive' little voice in your head that tells you to zig rather than zag.

True--it tends to focus more on risks that affect the general population and discuss them in broad terms, but a lot of it resonated with me as a cyclist...

Maybe he'll approve this:

I am also a cyclist but the fact that a cyclist is involved in this incident is almost beside the point. This driver was so far off the road that she hit him with the LEFT side of her car.
That means the victim could have been you walking down the sidewalk with not a care in the world, or a young mother pushing a stroller.

As far as the earlier comment - "A bicyclist who demands his rights on the roadways are just living in their own little worlds as well. Hmmm, 1/2 ton car vs a Schwinn, who do you think will win that one?"

I'll respond with this - Compact car drivers who demands their rights on the roadways are just living in their own little worlds as well. Hmmm, a 1/2 ton car vs a fully loaded 18-wheeler, who do you think will win that one?

The fact is cyclists ARE entitled to share the road, and drivers are obligated to treat them as motor vehicles. Sure, we'll lose the physical battle every time. However that doesn't make the auto driver any less wrong for causing the accident.

Here's the comment I posted on his blog. Let's see if he makes it visible:

Consider a different context: Who's the bigger fool? Smith, who works in a smelting plant? Or Brown, who also works there and carelessly knocked Smith into a vat of molten steel?

Being on the road is similar in that it's a potentially hazardous activity for all users, including the 44,000 non-bicycling fatalities each year. That shared risk demands a few things of all roadway users (and all employees at a smelting plant, for that matter): a level of attention to the task at hand, an extra dose of attention to compensate for those who may not have enough of their own, and a consideration for the risk one is posing to the other users. The workplace slogan of safety being everyone's concern is equally true of roadway users.

A bicyclist using the rules of Vehicular Cycling (Google "John Forester") is fulfilling every obligation that a roadway user has, and is acting in a responsible manner. Any attempt to make such a cyclist the guilty party in his accident or death is wrong. It is absolving the auto driver of his responsibilities and obligations as a roadway user, and is transferring the blame to the victim. It's akin to blaming a woman for her ****.

Using your type of reasoning, let's determine the fault in any auto-auto accident by putting the two vehicles on a scale: the lighter vehicle's driver is at fault automatically because he put himself at risk knowing there are heavier vehicles on the road. Then add how much of a shame it is that that's the way the roads in this country are, and wouldn't it be peachy if everyone took the bus instead.

Lastly, your prior blog post is about the loss of manners in society. Don't manners include looking out for the other person? If it applies to "Do you mind if I smoke?", how much more does it apply to "Do you mind if I kill you?"

Notice the pix of the guy with the assualt rifle.

^^^^^Check this out: if you click on his link (the one in the upper right, the pic of him pointing a rifle) he has an "About Lee" page. In it he answers "Almost 100 Questions".

#19: What's your idea of a righteous death? Defending the weak and innocent

Huh? Freakin' hypocrite...

Excellent explanation and analogy. I hope you'll be satisified knowing that most of the cyclists reading it will understand and probably agree but that the "gent" whose comments generated this thread will be the one person who won't understand what you've taken the time to explain.