Originally Posted by
DX-MAN
Skydivers and scuba divers don't see a mentality where tens of thousands of their number are killed annually is accepted as "the cost of doing business". Nor do they practice their activity daily amongst thousands of oblivious base jumpers or swimmers.
When a motorist is hit by another, the main impact is borne by steel, shaped into "crumple zones", not flesh, bone, and cloth. (THAT is the "vulnerable" part.) As long as people think operating 3000lbs. of 150-200hp steel and rubber as if it's only worthy of 30% of their awareness, YOU'RE DAMNED RIGHT I WANT SOME PROTECTIVE MEASURES TAKEN.
Do I want to be KNOWN as a vulnerable user? I'd rather be known just as a road user, no special designation; but since the private auto seems to outnumber KIDS in America, much less ALL OTHER FORMS OF TRANSPORT, I don't see the recognition of equality happening any time soon. If being called a "vulnerable user" gets attention to the hazards we face daily, then OK.
It's great to accent the positives of cycling, rather than focusing on trimming the negatives by regulation; but LAW, by its very nature, is a negative, always saying what you HAVE to do or CANNOT do. When dealing with lawmakers, who are the only real hope we have for any sort of equality, we have to accent the negative -- it's all they understand. And impatient, aggressive, gratify-me-NOW America won't cop to what we already KNOW, because all they see is: slow, sweaty, minimalist, and outside their comfort zone; how do they haul groceries/kids/drycleaning/10-disc CD changer w/ subwoofer, and still have "status"? Because their seats are 2-1/2 feet wide, and ours are <8", they cannot conceive of comfort, and dismiss us as "gay" because we must LIKE having something hard up our arses. NOT in John-Wayne MANLY America!
So, call me vulnerable; call me GAY, if you like. But leave me and mine alone with your bumper & fender, or your life WILL change forever.
I empathize with your anger. But I think that you, like most North Americans, overestimate both the danger of riding a bike and the safety of riding in a car. I also believe that these bicycle advocacy groups play on these fears to some extent.
Ultimately, if bicycling in streets were an excessively dangerous activity, it would be logical to outlaw it. I think it's more truthful to say that both cycling and driving have similar risks. Appropriate road designs result in conditions that are safer for
all users.
It's hard to be rational about risks, but well worth trying.