Originally Posted by elocs
(Post 19787007)
For all cyclists who demand that they are vehicles on the road and have the right to a place on the road along with motor vehicles, then you are subject to the same laws and penalties and responsibilities as drivers of motor vehicles. You cannot make the rules of the road your buffet in picking and choosing which laws you want to obey. You cannot claim to be a vehicle on the road when it suits you but then claim you are just a bike when it does not. You cannot condemn motor vehicles for endangering you and then by your actions as a cyclist endanger pedestrians because you are bigger and more intimidating and have more physical power than they do. You can't have things both ways.
DD |
Originally Posted by FBinNY
(Post 19789195)
I basically agree, but live by the "no harm, no foul" rule.
... I'm like the tree falling in a forest with nobody to hear. I'll show myself out... :D |
It was a beautiful calm sunshiny day. I was out in the field sitting-facing the woods and a 60 ft. Poplar tree fell right over not far in from the edge of the woods.
|
Originally Posted by elocs
(Post 19787007)
For all cyclists who demand that they are vehicles on the road and have the right to a place on the road along with motor vehicles, then you are subject to the same laws and penalties and responsibilities as drivers of motor vehicles. You cannot make the rules of the road your buffet in picking and choosing which laws you want to obey. You cannot claim to be a vehicle on the road when it suits you but then claim you are just a bike when it does not. You cannot condemn motor vehicles for endangering you and then by your actions as a cyclist endanger pedestrians because you are bigger and more intimidating and have more physical power than they do. You can't have things both ways.
|
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
(Post 19789961)
What percentage of cyclists (all cyclists, not just BF A&S posters) do you think demand that "they are vehicles on the road" or have ever claimed to be a "vehicle on the road"? My guess - less than 1%. Probably is about the same percentage of cyclists who endanger pedestrians because they are bigger and more intimidating and have more physical power than pedestrians do.
|
Originally Posted by elocs
(Post 19790105)
Since you are demanding percentages why not provide some of your own other than guesses? My state, like many or even most others specifically states that bicycles are considered to be vehicles on the road just the same as other motor vehicles. You can't ***** because cars and trucks are bigger and more powerful than you on a bicycle and don't respect you and then do the same thing as a cyclist to pedestrians. Wrong is wrong and it doesn't matter what the damned percentages may be. Is this a difficult concept for you?
|
I have personally watched a number of pedestrians step out into the street, in front of me, without so much as a look in each direction while crossing a street. The article states that the woman's child would like to have thought that her mother was thinking about the weekend ahead...... even though I have the right of way, I constantly check the intersection while crossing for such a scenario.
|
Originally Posted by dynodonn
(Post 19790718)
I have personally watched a number of pedestrians step out into the street, in front of me, without so much as a look in each direction while crossing a street. The article states that the woman's child would like to have thought that her mother was thinking about the weekend ahead...... even though I have the right of way, I constantly check the intersection while crossing for such a scenario.
Situational awareness is something everyone needs. A red light means absolutely nothing to the guy who either doesn't see it, or thinks he's in so much of a hurry that he doesn't care if he "makes it" or not. In no shape or form should this be interpreted as victim blaming, but it took two parties to cause that accident. The cyclist was riding recklessly, and the pedestrian was walking carelessly. Either one could easily have prevented the incident. |
I am not siding with the jerk cyclist in this case...but she should have looked both ways before crossing the street.
I've notice this alot, around here on campus...people cross the street without even looking up. |
Originally Posted by elocs
(Post 19788755)
I have to agree with Tape2012 who wrote: "I'm an engineer and live by numbers and percentages, but safety is one of those areas where it is inappropriate (and heartless) to analyze strictly by the numbers, especially when deaths and the corresponding larger number of injuries are so easily preventable. Preventing these incidents is totally up to the cyclist and to disregard potential consequences as numerically insignificant goes out the window the first time you injure someone due to your own careless behavior."
A pedestrian being killed by a cyclist is not a statistical oddity if it were to happen to you or a family member of friend. Respect and obeying the rules by cyclists for pedestrians is exactly what we expect from drivers as bike riders for ourselves. |
Originally Posted by CarinusMalmari
(Post 19792981)
Your "argument" hinges on an appeal to emotion, and really isn't an argument at all.
Based on your reasoning, if a child is kidnapped, we shouldn't try to recover him/her because one life is statistically insignificant? So your perfectly ok with child abuse, sexual slavery, pedophiles, etc as long as it stays below some statistically significant threshold? I hope even you don't believe that. |
Originally Posted by Tape2012
(Post 19792987)
Based on your reasoning, if a child is kidnapped, we shouldn't try to recover him/her because one life is statistically insignificant? So your perfectly ok with child abuse, sexual slavery, pedophiles, etc as long as it stays below some statistically significant threshold?
|
Originally Posted by CarinusMalmari
(Post 19793281)
This is your own straw-man argument and has nothing to do with my reasoning.
In every manufacturing facility that I have worked in or managed, our goal for injuries was always zero. Always. That wasn't the case for quality, productivity, on time shipments, etc. Unless you take the position that EVERY injury is preventable, then you start down a slippery slope where some amount of injuries are acceptable, and that's a position we refused to accept when it came to our employees. So no, you cannot apply the same strictly numerical analysis to safety that you can to everything else. It's not an emotional argument as you suggest, it's a values driven one. |
I read the article and for me it left more questions than answers. First, if the author of the article wasn't there, how is there such dead certainty of the pedestrian signal? Was a cop standing right there watching it, or is it a case where people with biases could be fudging the exact second the light turned and the positioning of the people? Second, why did the pedestrian ignore the lessons for crossing a street that I learned in second grade about to look left, look right and look left again before crossing? Since the obvious risk is being hit by a car, why wouldn't the pedestrian practice personal safety to check for moving vehicles? Third, was it one of those intersections where pedestrians get a signal to cross but vehicles can still legally turn right into the crosswalk? Yes, in such cases pedestrians have right of way but I was within inches of being hit that exact way when I was 16 because the car didn't have any means of knowing there was a pedestrian signal active vs the usual turn right on red law.
While yeah, bicycles can screw up and hit someone and someone not bracing for a fall can result in a head injury, I get the feeling from the obvious slant of the article that the situation is a lot muddier than Mrs. Saint being run down by the minion of Lucifer. |
All accidents are preventable. Being in control is the key. Toddlers can be just a dangerous as the elderly and every age in between. "look ahead"
|
Originally Posted by rachel120
(Post 19793708)
I was within inches of being hit that exact way when I was 16 because the car didn't have any means of knowing there was a pedestrian signal active vs the usual turn right on red law.
|
Originally Posted by rachel120
(Post 19793708)
Yes, in such cases pedestrians have right of way but I was within inches of being hit that exact way when I was 16 because the car didn't have any means of knowing there was a pedestrian signal active vs the usual turn right on red law.
Whether or not there's a pedestrian signal is completely irrelevant. |
Originally Posted by Tape2012
(Post 19794442)
The right on red law requires the vehicle to come to a complete stop and ensure the way is clear before proceeding. He doesn't need to see the pedestrian signal, he is required to look.
Where I live it is legal to ride on the sidewalk and safer in nearly every situation except that one but I have a loud battery horn on my bike to get the driver's attention. |
Originally Posted by DrIsotope
(Post 19790774)
Situational awareness is something everyone needs. A red light means absolutely nothing to the guy who either doesn't see it, or thinks he's in so much of a hurry that he doesn't care if he "makes it" or not. In no shape or form should this be interpreted as victim blaming, but it took two parties to cause that accident. The cyclist was riding recklessly, and the pedestrian was walking carelessly. Either one could easily have prevented the incident.
And me witnessing it is also a need for situational awareness. I saw her not slow down in my mirror and I just froze, convinced I was about to see someone die. So I traveled a bit of distance not looking ahead of me, my eyes locked onto my mirror. I'm glad no one legally stepped out or pulled out ahead of me, I would have hit them not knowing they were there.
Originally Posted by njkayaker
(Post 19795171)
Drivers making right turns (on reds) are required to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk, always.
Whether or not there's a pedestrian signal is completely irrelevant.
Originally Posted by elocs
(Post 19795205)
Drivers turning right at a stop sign or a right turn after stopping at a red light nearly always only look to their left.
|
Originally Posted by rachel120
(Post 19795415)
Elocs is right. They are legally supposed to come to a full stop and look all directions. But are you going to blindly step out while counting on that law, like the pedestrian in the article supposedly did, or are you going to look first before proceeding? I walked about a mile today. Twice if I had relied on adherence to the law I would have been hit; I wasn't because I kept my eyes on traffic and stopped just shy of stepping out when it was clear the car wasn't stopping.
So I push the walk button and look to my left and wait and it's amazing how often a vehicle will accelerate when the light turns yellow and get most of the light red, sometimes all red. One time when I had pushed the button and waited until the light had turned green and had I stepped off the curb I would have been killed by an ambulance--not on a run, just trying to beat the yellow light and missing all of it. Bikes are vulnerable to being hit by cars but pedestrians are vulnerable to both cars and bikes. And let's be honest--not every cyclist is a blameless angel on 2 wheels. Hit a walking kid while on your bike and you will find your excuses for doing it won't go far because they have a diminished responsibility because of their age. So it behooves us to respect and treat pedestrians how we wish we were respected and treated by motor vehicles even when the pedestrians are less than perfect as we are. |
Originally Posted by FBinNY
(Post 19786730)
IMO the excuse that motorists kill or injure more people than bicyclists carries no weight. It excuses nothing to point claim that someone is worse.
OTOH there's an over emphasis on obeying the law. Traffic law and traffic control devices developed around motor vehicles, and were applied to bikes as an after thought. I don't offer that as an excuse to break the law, which is a good framework, but to point out that safety and the law aren't the same thing. Safety comes from common sense, courtesy and respect, and it's possible to ride safely with loose adherence to the law, and dangerously with strict adherence. |
Originally Posted by rachel120
(Post 19795415)
Originally Posted by njkayaker
(Post 19795171)
Drivers making right turns (on reds) are required to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk, always.
Whether or not there's a pedestrian signal is completely irrelevant.
Originally Posted by elocs
(Post 19795205)
Drivers turning right at a stop sign or a right turn after stopping at a red light nearly always only look to their left.
The pedestrian has a legal obligation to look and yield to traffic that can't reasonably stop in time. In any case, looking (by the driver and the pedestrian) is necessary regardless of the legal issues to avoid collisions. The law just makes what is obvious common-sense explicit. People (drivers or pedestrians) shouldn't need the law to know to look. |
Originally Posted by Tape2012
(Post 19786687)
You hear people on these forums justify how they ride by saying that when they are on their bike they are only risking their own life. This is a good reminder that those statements are not true.
I walk a lot. Not a week goes by that I don't have to take evasive action to avoid being hit. |
I can't say how many times I've heard cyclists complain because they perceive that motorist are impatient around cyclist; however, the same impatience can be seen in cyclists. I've seen it first hand and there are countless examples on youtube.
|
Originally Posted by work4bike
(Post 19801499)
I can't say how many times I've heard cyclists complain because they perceive that motorist are impatient around cyclist; however, the same impatience can be seen in cyclists. I've seen it first hand and there are countless examples on youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFokzDxEDfs |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:50 AM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.