Originally Posted by livedarklions

Well, if we're in agreement on the avoidability issue, you're agreeing with me that avoidability in hindsight is a meaningless statement, and therefore you just conceded that all of your arguments here have been completely nonconsequential. Thanks for that. Wanna play that twist my words game some more?

Actually, now that I reread what you actually wrote, you say that the video was avoidable. Not sure that's ever been an issue.

Reason I put that story there is because I wouldn't have been in a position for the car plowing into me from behind if I wasn't in the lane. It's always a risk of being in the lane, and one of the other posters stated that the accident in the video wouldn't have happened to him if he had taken the lane. Again, that's not testable, so we have no idea whether taking the lane wouldn't have caused him to get rear-ended. Also, I was directly responding to another poster who said that slowing down is always the safe response. In my incident, if I had slowed, I'm quite sure I wouldn't be around to type this today.

You "Junior NTSB" guys, as usual, are missing my point. I have no idea whether or not the cyclist is in any way to blame, but neither do you. I'm objecting to this whole "He should have" or "I would have" nonsense that goes on here. I have no idea what you guys think qualifies you to assess "blame", but I really think people in A&S need to stop doing that. It's a bunch of self-appointed "experts" blathering on about universal rules nobody really agrees on in specific situations they really know next to nothing about. I think it's stupid, non-constructive, and incessant. The only thing I'm seeing different about this particular incident is you guys keep having to rewrite the SUV's actions because the video evidence doesn't support what any of you were initially asserting.