retswerb

And this is precisely why advocacy is needed (to drivers, to the city, and to cyclists themselves) and victim-blaming is unhelpful.

Paul Barnard

I have my doubts that anyone who comes to this forum needs to be reminded that motor vehicles travel faster and weigh more than bicycles and that as a consequence bicyclists always lose in collisions. Nobody benefits from being told they need to accept that, irrespective of what meaning anyone assigns to the word accept.

I am a STRONG proponent of defensive riding and am always looking at collisions to determine what cyclists could have done differently to have avoided them, no matter who is "at fault." The law of gross tonnage has no place in or any value in any safety and advocacy discussion. Do we look at the picture of the carnage left behind from the tractor trailer crash that I posted a picture of and think, "if only the motorists had been aware of the rule of gross tonnage."

FBinNY 

I've always had an issue with the concept of "victim blaming", a relatively recent addition to our conversations. Originally used in the contexts of civil rights & sex crimes, it's been expanding to just about everything.

While I agree that blaming the victim to deflect blame from those directly responsible is unconscionable, and we see too much of in criminal and political/civil rights contexts, we need to be equally careful to avoid using the phrase to obstruct legitimate conversations about causality.

There's a very fine line between "victim blaming" and legitimate inquiry, analysis, or using incidents as a teachable moments. So, it's important to consider context and intent before tossing out an accusation of victim blaming. By example, when the NTSB determines a plane crash to be the result of pilot error, nobody accuses them of victim blaming, because everybody acknowledges the importance of knowing how and why crashes happen.

I can't speak for anybody else, but when I feel compelled to point out how a victim might have avoided a right hook or whatever, I'm not assigning blame, nor excusing other parties, but trying to help folks who aren't victims avoid being so.

Also, as a 50+ years/200k+ miles cyclist I'm offended (for lack of a better word) by the "woe is us, being forced to ride under such dangerous conditions, consistently attacked by malicious motorists" attitude I see here so often. IMO and IME bicycling is SAFE, but can be unforgiving, so there are things we can and must do to keep ourselves from becoming statistics.

That said, I agree that there's lot's of room for improvement, so advocacy is constructive, but it shouldn't deflect us from doing whatever we can to ride smarter.

FWIW I consider my audience here on BF when I post. The readership here isn't traffic engineers, city/regional planners, or trucking fleet executives, it bicyclists, so I speak to them about what they can do.

livedarklions

There's a huge difference between what you and Joey have been posting. Joey's just lying about his agenda for the past few years-- he's been consistently advocating for people to not ride and telling people they are fools for doing so. You are offering practical opinions based on your experience.

Let's be clear, Joey said we are supposed to "accept" the "consequences." That's not anywhere near how you are using the word. Accepting that I need to be vigilant is too obvious to bear much repeating. Five minutes on a road with traffic will disabuse any idea to the contrary.

​​​​​​
There's no sense that acceptance is a good word in the consequences context unless you're completely fatalistic. I accept I have to be careful. No one is suggesting otherwise. And no, I won't just accept being assaulted intentionally on the road. I will take any opportunity I get to make the culprit regret that choice, legally or otherwise. I plead the fifth on the otherwise. I have made mistakes that resulted in my injury, I don't just accept that, I have learned from it. A good example of this is I will no longer ride sleep deprived after an incident where it was made painfully (literally) obvious that I couldn't be careful enough when my judgment and focus was impaired.

As to the victim blaming thing, when someone actually posts that you are responsible for being assaulted when you choose to ride because you should expect to encounter such people, there's really no other appropriate term.


​​​​​​I have posted repeatedly why I don't like the faux NTSB analysis that goes on in this forum. The problem is that there's always really sketchy evidence as to what really happened (usually a nearly detail-free news story) and all that happens is people argue about what really happened, who was to blame, and why it would never happen to the person commenting, but everyone else on the forum is just asking for it. Damn shabby thing to do with a tragedy.


​​​

FBinNY 

It's kinda funny. I'd expect that you're right, and nobody should need reminding, but......

I also scuba dive, and the consequences of running out of air at depth are obvious. However, running low or out of air remains the number one contributor to dive injuries and deaths. That's despite.equipment that makes air management ultra easy.

However, while I grant that the danger "gross tonnage" is pretty obvious, how many newer riders know how to manage hazards, such as rear axle arc of long vehicles, high bodies, the A pillar blind spot, dooring, and so on. Also, how many know how to read traffic to avoid right hooks or left crosses, or what to do as they happen.

The fact is that most relatively inexperienced cyclists have no idea how much they don't know (unknown unknowns). Given the lack of alternate sources, one might think we'd embrace forums where newbs can benefit from the experience of those who are willing to share.

It's been said that the smart kid learns not to after burning his fingers, but the smarter kid learns this after his brother burns them.

FBinNY 

You clearly have some sort of bug about Joey, and I'm not appointing myself as his defender

However, I don't have any suspicion that Joey is trying to discourage anyone.

By the same token, when he talks about the assumed risk inherent in bicycling, i believe he's doing so in the context of remind folks that, having accepted that risk, it's incumbent on them to manage it.

BTW I guess I should thank you for drawing a distinction between Joey and me, but I'm really not sure of it's basis.

Paul Barnard

THAT is where our focus needs to be. When one of these factors appears to be contributory in an accident, that 's what we should discuss. If someone gets taken out due to the rear axle arc, it does nobody any good for someone to point out that trucks weigh more than bicycles. Where's the value in saying that we need to accept that as an inevitable outcome of sharing the road with heavy, fast moving motor vehicles.

Paul Barnard

You missed quite a bit during your absence. Joey's primary purpose here is to serve as an antagonist. Everyone knows that there is inherent risk in riding. There's no value in telling them. There is a lot of value in telling people how to manage the risk. There is a HUGE difference between you and him. You ride. Your heart is in the right place. You don't feel a need to antagonize. You won't run from a tough question.

livedarklions

Very simple, he's spent the last 4 years demonstrating that when he says we have to just accept whatever is done to us when we are on the road, he means exactly that. Look up his posts about coal-rolling if you don't believe me.

BillyD

You guys have apparently run out of relevant material to discuss in this thread and have resorted to squabbling and personal attacks. Closed.