Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > > >

Vehicular Cycling (VC) No other subject has polarized the A&S members like VC has. Here's a place to share, debate, and educate.

View Poll Results: Is driving a Car an inherently dangerous activity
Yes 21 72.41%
No 8 27.59%
Voters: 29. You may not vote on this poll

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-16-07, 08:04 PM   #1
natelutkjohn
Cheesmonger Extraordinair
Thread Starter
 
natelutkjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Bikes:
Posts: 417
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The danger of the road

This may not seem VC oriented yet, but bear with me...

Is driving a car an inherently dangerous activity that we acept as a way of life seeing as how there are 1000 pound plus vehicles careening along with less then 10 feet between you at 55+ mph and 43,200 motorists die a year?

By way of this definition
in·her·ent
Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic.
natelutkjohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-07, 10:08 PM   #2
zeytoun
Non-Custom Member
 
zeytoun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Portland, Oregon
Bikes: 1975-1980 SR road bike
Posts: 1,613
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think it's a good question.

I have a couple points.

Dangerous is relative. Although, that driving a lot is more dangerous then only driving a little, and probably more dangerous then things like walking, taking public transportation, and bicycling responsibly (not drunk, lights at night, right direction, following traffic signals, and not zooming down the sidewalk).

So compared to these alternative activities, I think it's fair to call driving "dangerous".

The next point is "inherently". Essential, intrinsic (inseparable, I might add)... I don't see why it has to be the way it is. I think that in the future, we can improve safety systems, etc., and reduce driving mortalities to at least as low as the alternatives. So it is not an inseparable, intrinsic part of driving, IMO.

But to get on the road in an automobile today, i think you can reduce risks, but I believe you will still on average have a higher risk of mortality then the alternatives. So at the current state, I believe the statistical dangers of driving are not avoidable, only reduceable to level still higher then the alternatives.

So based on my statements, how should I vote?
zeytoun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-07, 10:34 PM   #3
joejack951
Senior Member
 
joejack951's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wilmington, DE
Bikes: 1984 Trek 660, 2003 Specialized Hardrock, 2004 LOOK KG386i (RIP), 2005 Iron Horse Warrior Expert, 2009 Pedal Force CX1, 2014 Islabikes CNOC 14 (son's)
Posts: 10,189
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 189 Post(s)
I voted based on my opinion that just about any normal activity is not inherently dangerous, provided that one takes the proper precautions. I exclude from "normal activity" things like space travel and climbing Mount Everest. "Safe" is only relative. If you look at everything that could go wrong, there's not much that could be labeled safe (my computer monitor could blow up and kill me right now for instance). When there are many small things that could go wrong, any one of which would lead to your death, that's where I start calling something dangerous. It gets more difficult as you start looking at the in-between activities but I place things like driving and cycling quite close to the safe marker.
joejack951 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-07, 05:52 AM   #4
natelutkjohn
Cheesmonger Extraordinair
Thread Starter
 
natelutkjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Bikes:
Posts: 417
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Zeytoun, I don't want to say which way you should vote on it - but the way I see the inherent coming into it is due to the fact that yes, I personally can do everything to protect myself, but I am one of MANY drivers out there, anyone of which may not have had his brakes checked recently, is reaching for a dropped cigarette, etc. I am also NOT saying that calling it inherently dangerous means you should be scared to drive on the road - just an acknowledgement of the risks we take everyday (if you dirive a car/truck) when we interact with others on the highway.
natelutkjohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-07, 07:20 AM   #5
sbhikes
Dominatrikes
 
sbhikes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Still in Santa Barbara
Bikes: Catrike Pocket, Lightning Thunderbold recumbent, Trek 3000 MTB.
Posts: 4,920
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think the accident and death statistic reveal its nature as a dangerous activity. Add to that the amount of road kill, the destruction of habitat to build roads, the destruction of communities to build freeways, the destruction of the natural environment in the creation of the chemicals and materials to build cars and the destruction of the environment, wars and political corruption required to use them. Yep, it's intrinsically dangerous.
sbhikes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-07, 09:20 AM   #6
Bekologist
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
Posts: 18,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
driving inherently dangerous, yes. I believe the statistics show EVERY driver WILL get into an accident during their driving 'career.' Yes, it IS inherently dangerous if everyone will encounter a fender bender or collision or single car accident once while driving.
Bekologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-07, 10:14 AM   #7
The Human Car
-=Barry=-
 
The Human Car's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Bikes:
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Over 90% of all traffic accidents are avoidable. The carnage we see on today’s roadways is the result of people simply not following the rules. The combination of blatant disregard for the rules to just poor diver training makes driving a dangerous activity but I don’t think it is inherently dangerous.

But I do think there is a major problem that our society accepts traffic fatalities and accidents as simply a cost of doing business to keep America moving and has made concessions under the disguise of promoting moving at the cost of public safety yet if you would look closely at all theses concessions they don’t help keep America moving at all and I would say that they are having the very opposite effect then what they are intending.
__________________
Cycling Advocate
http://BaltimoreSpokes.org
. . . o
. . /L
=()>()
The Human Car is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-07, 10:44 AM   #8
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,781
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 464 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Human Car
Over 90% of all traffic accidents are avoidable. The carnage we see on today’s roadways is the result of people simply not following the rules. The combination of blatant disregard for the rules to just poor diver training makes driving a dangerous activity but I don’t think it is inherently dangerous.
Following the rules... job number one... amazingly if motorists followed the rules, then vehicular cycling would work wonderfully... however, as long as some drivers have a "mine" mentality and chose to do selfish things, then cyclists have to do what it takes to be safe out there.

Is driving inherently dangerous... why do you think a license is required?
genec is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-07, 02:10 PM   #9
The Human Car
-=Barry=-
 
The Human Car's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Baltimore, MD +/- ~100 miles
Bikes:
Posts: 4,077
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by genec
Is driving inherently dangerous... why do you think a license is required?
Good point but we also license pilots to keep flying relatively safe as flying would be very dangerous if everyone was allowed to fly and do whatever they thought best.

So is the inherent problem of all the carnage on the road with just the act of driving or is the problem with the licensing? The balls back in your court.
__________________
Cycling Advocate
http://BaltimoreSpokes.org
. . . o
. . /L
=()>()
The Human Car is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-07, 02:27 PM   #10
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,781
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 464 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Human Car
Good point but we also license pilots to keep flying relatively safe as flying would be very dangerous if everyone was allowed to fly and do whatever they thought best.

So is the inherent problem of all the carnage on the road with just the act of driving or is the problem with the licensing? The balls back in your court.
Kind of backwards. There is enough danger in just using a 3000 pound vehicle with 10s to 100s of HP of power that the state (every state) requires the user to demonstrate reasonable capability to control the vehicle and to carry insurance... that to me says there is inherent danger in driving... period.

Now with a strict set of rules in place, driving should be fairly safe... as long as the rules are followed. Now considering the number of motorists and the distances traveled... the general public gets it right most of the time. However... we do have an inordinate number of deaths associated with driving that somehow just get swept under the rug as "part of the equation." Under any other circumstances such carnage would be fodder for some type of protest and political campaign... yet it is "just part of the equation."

Does it seem odd that we accept that carnage, yet whine about other instances of death so loudly... heck yeah.

Could the numbers of dead and maimed be reduced... heck yeah... but that means that every driving individual has to do a better job... and that is where the problem lies... most drivers are very willing to say... ah, the next guy can do it. And our legislators are not willing to pony up the funds nor change the requirements to make licensing stricter. "Everyone drives."

Look at the use of turn signals on the freeway... why doesn't everyone use them? Why doesn't everyone follow with a 2+second safe distance? Why don't drivers stop before turning right on red?

Little things can save lives... but that is not how driving is "sold" to the American public... it is sold as sexy and exciting... and people buy into that. In reality, it is inherently dangerous... which is why every driver has to have a license and insurance. If it were a safe activity, such as cycling... no insurance would be required.

EDIT: removed statement about road dead vrs war dead.

Last edited by genec; 05-18-07 at 07:19 AM.
genec is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-07, 09:24 PM   #11
LittleBigMan
Sumanitu taka owaci
 
LittleBigMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Bikes:
Posts: 8,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This thread begs the question, "Is cycling inherently dangerous?"

From here on, the usual posters will take their chosen side in the question, which is usually opposite one another, in a predictable pattern.

And so continues the circle of life.
__________________
No worries
LittleBigMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-07, 10:02 PM   #12
Tom Stormcrowe
Out fishing with Annie on his lap, a cigar in one hand and a ginger ale in the other, watching the sunset.
 
Tom Stormcrowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Florida
Bikes: Techna Wheelchair and a Sun EZ 3 Recumbent Trike
Posts: 16,120
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete Fagerlin
This kind of hyperbole just makes you look like a fool.

For example:

Civil war: 600,000 casualties
WWII: 400, 000 casualties

The autophobia inherent in these threads is predictable, yet still funny.
Now here we agree totally!
__________________
. “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”- Fredrick Nietzsche

"We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." - Immanuel Kant
Tom Stormcrowe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-07, 12:49 AM   #13
Brian Ratliff
Senior Member
 
Brian Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Near Portland, OR
Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
Posts: 10,065
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleBigMan
This thread begs the question, "Is cycling inherently dangerous?"
Why?

What are your views about automobile driving?
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Brian Ratliff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-07, 04:47 AM   #14
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Posts: 23,853
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete Fagerlin
The autophobia inherent in these threads is predictable, yet still funny.
You think it is funny; I think a discussion of degree of danger of any activity, with no concept/consideration of acceptable risk is silly.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-07, 05:36 AM   #15
natelutkjohn
Cheesmonger Extraordinair
Thread Starter
 
natelutkjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Bikes:
Posts: 417
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
You think it is funny; I think a discussion of degree of danger of any activity, with no concept/consideration of acceptable risk is silly.
That's the point of this poll mostly - discussion of an activity that a LARGE amount of everyday people do or, indirectly, an activity that a large amount of everyday people are being encouraged to do with the other LARGE group of people - if you jump into it while being told it is not inherently dangerous to some level then the activity just becomes even more dangerous.
natelutkjohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-07, 07:17 AM   #16
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
Posts: 24,781
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 464 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete Fagerlin
This kind of hyperbole just makes you look like a fool.

For example:

Civil war: 600,000 casualties
WWII: 400, 000 casualties

The autophobia inherent in these threads is predictable, yet still funny.
You're right... I stand corrected. I will go back and take it out.

However, I believe the sum of all US soldiers killed in all wars is still less than the sum of all drivers killed on US freeways.

Based on the 1,000,000 soldiers you list above, plus 314,000 for Vietnam, 34,000 in Korea, and 307,000 in the Spanish American war, 115,000 for World War 1 and 4000 for the Gulf wars so far, gives us, about 1,774,000 dead US soldiers in various wars for a high estimate.

According to this site, however, only 627,047 US soldiers perished in the various wars. http://www.americanfamilytraditions....casualties.htm

What I can't seem to find are the numbers for hiway deaths over 20 years ago. But based on an assumption of 40,000 per year over 40 years (only back to '67), that gives us a number of 1,600,000 motorists killed on the roads.

Last edited by genec; 05-18-07 at 08:02 AM.
genec is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-07, 03:42 PM   #17
LittleBigMan
Sumanitu taka owaci
 
LittleBigMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Bikes:
Posts: 8,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleBigMan
This thread begs the question, "Is cycling inherently dangerous?"

From here on, the usual posters will take their chosen side in the question, which is usually opposite one another, in a predictable pattern.

And so continues the circle of life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
Why?
Because this is a cycling forum.
__________________
No worries

Last edited by LittleBigMan; 05-18-07 at 09:07 PM.
LittleBigMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-07, 05:09 PM   #18
Brian Ratliff
Senior Member
 
Brian Ratliff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Near Portland, OR
Bikes: Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
Posts: 10,065
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleBigMan
Because this is a cycling forum.
The OP question begs your question because this is a cycling forum? I'm not following you here.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter
Brian Ratliff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-07, 08:24 PM   #19
JohnBrooking
Commuter
 
JohnBrooking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Southern Maine
Bikes: 2006 Giant Cypress EX (7-speed internal hub)
Posts: 2,567
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Although I agree that danger is relative, so it's difficult to accurately answer as a Yes/No question, my line of reasoning in voting Yes was that if it wasn't, society would not have come to the conclusion that all vehicles should be registered and all drivers be licensed to ensure at least a minimum standard of competence. Imagine how much more dangerous it would be if these were not required!
JohnBrooking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-07, 08:36 PM   #20
chipcom 
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi
Posts: 24,366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
People are dangerous. End of thread, thank you very much.
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey
chipcom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-07, 09:04 PM   #21
LittleBigMan
Sumanitu taka owaci
 
LittleBigMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Bikes:
Posts: 8,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleBigMan
This thread begs the question, "Is cycling inherently dangerous?"

From here on, the usual posters will take their chosen side in the question, which is usually opposite one another, in a predictable pattern.

And so continues the circle of life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleBigMan
Because this is a cycling forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
The OP question begs your question because this is a cycling forum? I'm not following you here.
Oh, I agree that acknowledgement of the carnage on American roads is one of the largest subjects of denial we have. I've posted many, many times that if Americans took seriously the people killed in motoring crashes, the Vietnam War would pale in comparison (that war covered a decade, and was almost equalled by the annual fatalities on our roads today--of course the main difference is that we "choose" to drive, rather than being drafted into it.)

Why is this posted in a cycling forum, if not to compare cycling with motoring in some fashion? Hence, the danger of cycling is the recycled fear again.

Look at the thread title, eh?
__________________
No worries

Last edited by LittleBigMan; 05-18-07 at 09:12 PM.
LittleBigMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-07, 09:06 PM   #22
natelutkjohn
Cheesmonger Extraordinair
Thread Starter
 
natelutkjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Bikes:
Posts: 417
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by chipcom
People are dangerous. End of thread, thank you very much.
Very true, pretty much the reason that lead me to post this thread after I read this quote...

Quote:
Riding in accordance with the rules of the road is not MY way.
It is, however, what allows cycling in traffic to not be inherently dangerous.
If driving is even slightly dangerous due to the fact that humans make some bone-headed and dangerous mistakes for many reasons then.....

Now I ride in heavy traffic daily as I'm sure many here do, but does anyone here tell themselves (or others) that doing so is not dangerous just because you follow the rules of the road? It is less dangerous I feel if you follow the rules, and I do have faith in my own abilities and observance of those around me, but it's still a risk I look forward to taking every day and the reason why I have a BIG problem with... well, nevermind, but suffice it to say. a super strong rider (not myself) who can hold their speed is much more safe in heavy 45+ mph traffic than someone who is not a strong rider and can't accelerate out of danger, etc. - not that they shouldn't ride in the road, but to tell them that doing so makes the activity inherently NOT dangerous?! well, I don't want them advocating to my family
natelutkjohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-07, 09:10 PM   #23
natelutkjohn
Cheesmonger Extraordinair
Thread Starter
 
natelutkjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Bikes:
Posts: 417
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleBigMan
Hence, the danger of cycling is the recycled fear again.

Look at the thread title, eh?
Recycled fear is far from the reason I posted this - cycling is much safer then driving in my opinon as I sold my car years ago to go car-free and feel much safer then ever despite cycling more miles a year then I used to drive in a year, but it requires acknowledgement of the risks and some here say that following certain behaviors so that we interact on a VERY personal level with these same carange inducing drivers all but removes those same risks created by the average motorist... that is dangerous in my opinon, but please, have at it
natelutkjohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-07, 09:40 PM   #24
LittleBigMan
Sumanitu taka owaci
 
LittleBigMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Bikes:
Posts: 8,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Natelutkjohn, if you're saying that:

"...cycling is much safer then driving in my opinon as I sold my car years ago to go car-free and feel much safer then ever despite cycling more miles a year then I used to drive in a year,"

...how do you reconcile that with the thread title, "The danger of the road?"
__________________
No worries
LittleBigMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-07, 06:27 AM   #25
natelutkjohn
Cheesmonger Extraordinair
Thread Starter
 
natelutkjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Bikes:
Posts: 417
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleBigMan
Natelutkjohn, if you're saying that:

"...cycling is much safer then driving in my opinon as I sold my car years ago to go car-free and feel much safer then ever despite cycling more miles a year then I used to drive in a year,"

...how do you reconcile that with the thread title, "The danger of the road?"
Well, I do feel that cycling is safer then driving due to the fact that I have the choice to ride on the road, on trails, paths, in lanes, etc. But just because I feel I am in more control of myself then the cars around me doesn't mean that now the danger that cars present to themselves and others no longer exists for me when I place myself in between merging and lane changing cars at 45+mph - I also said the line after that one you quoted
Quote:
it requires acknowledgement of the risks
as there defintily are areas of my communte now and in the past that I feel were MUCH more dangerous for me to be doing on a bicycle then in a car - those sections though are few but memorable
natelutkjohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:07 AM.