Originally Posted by
TRaffic Jammer
Is Genec saying it's too dangerous?
He's not saying it's too dangerous explicitly, but his argument clearly implies it:
Originally Posted by genec
Mixing 3000-6000+ lb vehicles moving at speeds well above 20MPH with cyclists at roughly 200lbs is not a good combination. It is inherently dangerous, just as working in a steel mill is inherently dangerous.
The only reason traffic works is because of rules, and those obeying the rules.
If the rules are not well understood, then problems will arise.
Gene says, "The only reason traffic works is because of rules, and those obeying the rules."
But we know that not everyone obeys the rules all of the time.
Therefore (according to Gene's argument),
traffic does not work.
Gene says, "If the rules are not well understood, then problems will arise.".
Gene has also argued, countless times, that the rules are not well understood by drivers. Therefore "problems will arise". Note that there is no wiggle room here for mitigating these problems by the cyclist - they are, per his argument, inevitable. So the implication is: "problems
will arise for you, the cyclist,
regardless of what you do."
And, of course, there is the blanket assertion: "It is inherently dangerous". In other words, you, the cyclist, are a sitting duck out there, vulnerable to being mowed down at any time by "3000-6000+ lb vehicles moving at speeds well above 20MPH", and there is nothing you can do about that. After all, "it is not a good combination", so it must be a
bad combination.
So, do
you feel encouraged by his argument to go out there now? Of course not. This is blatant
anti-cycling advocacy.
I don't mean to pick on Gene. This is the implied message of any so-called bike advocate promoting the "need" for motorist education and/or segregated facilities. That's false and
anti-cycling advocacy.
Originally Posted by
TRaffic Jammer
As for cycling in traffic being reasonably safe, well it certainly becomes debatable when risk assessment is upto the individual now isn't it? Just the chance that one could be killed by an inattentive driver while riding to work is enough in our safety heightened/paranoid times. Or, in Toronto's case the typical spring killing of cyclists' by dump trucks passing/right hooking cyclists.
It only takes a couple of those stories on the 6 O'clock news to ruin the expansion of cycling in our city for the year. Maybe, just maybe if the "wanting to cycle" folks saw active action on trying to make sure motorists were being targeted in an education blitz/PSA's/billboards etc regarding the roads and all it's users', they mightn't be so afraid. Perception is reality in the general public's eye.
Now you're paying attention. Good.
I agree that the perception out there right now is that cycling is inherently dangerous, and that the cyclist is putting his life in the hands of total and complete unpredictable strangers behind the wheels of multi-ton killing-machines if he dares to go out there. But the solution is to change that perception, not feed it.
Look, drivers of big trucks have blind spots, and they don't expect to be passed on the right as they are turning right from the right lane. They don't expect anyone to be there. This is a world-wide problem. The solution is not to change the behavior of truck drivers because, realistically, that's just not going to happen. And feeding into the false perception that that is where the problem is, and so that is what needs to be solved, is never going to change anything. The perception will remain, and the collisions will continue, and the perception will remain. There is no way out of that loop. And it's
anti-cycling.
The only way out is to change the perception. Get people to realize the role of the cyclist in each and every one of these tragedies, and how the cyclist has total and complete control to avoid it. I am here to tell you I am never ever going to get right hooked by a big truck. I just won't let that happen to me. And if I can do it, anyone can. That's the message that we need to get out there, not that truck drivers have to change before it will ever be reasonably safe to ride a bicycle in the streets - that's absurd, and it is just not going to happen.
Consider what happens when people hear about others being mugged at 3am in questionable neighborhoods. It's sad, but we have come to understand that you shouldn't walk around alone in certain areas in the middle of the night. That's why we have the line, "let me walk you to your car, and you drive me to mine". That doesn't mean that walking is dangerous, or walking at night is dangerous, or walking in that area is dangerous, or even walking there at night is dangerous as long as you are not alone. It means that
walking alone at night in that area is dangerous. It's the combination of factors that make it dangerous, the danger is not inherent to the activity.
So that's what we have to get across. It's not that bicycling is dangerous. It's not that big trucks are dangerous. It's not even that bicycling past big trucks is dangerous. What's dangerous is
bicycling to the right of big trucks, and stopping to the right of big trucks, at places where they can and might be turned right. It's the combination of factors that make it dangerous, the danger is not inherent to the activity.
Gene's argument, and the argument of any so-called "bike advocate" promoting the "need" (Randya's word) for better motorist education and segregated facilities makes it sound like ALL bicycling in any kind of traffic is simply too dangerous, period, and will remain so until the environment changes.