Cyclosaurus

The similarity ends with the stark contrast in casualty rates. Just because the behavior is similar doesn't mean the results are. Jaywalkers are lawbreakers too just like motorists, maybe we should say that they are just as responsible for keep everyone safe. The conversation begins and ends with what needs to be done to change motorist behavior. Nothing else will move the needle as far as safety is concerned.

VTBike

Uhh... Reducing jaywalking would reduce injuries. (Am I seriously having to explain this to someone?) In any event, nice invocation of Commandment No. 7.

And even if the results are different, this does not logically dictate that bicyclists' behavior should not be addressed. Using your "logic", you don't treat a fungal infection if you have cancer. If you wouldn't live your life that way, why is it okay to suspend rules of logic when you talk about bicycling? Hint: It's not.

Someone who is not willing to look at all factors is not truly concerned with safety - just their personal agenda.

Cyclosaurus

Jaywalkers put themselves at risk. It's not safe, but it doesn't threaten others' lives. Cyclists break traffic laws, but usually only put themselves at risk, they don't threaten others' lives. I advocate for cyclists to be more careful in general around pedestrians, because pedestrians are more slower and more vulnerable. It doesn't rise to the level of thousands of pedestrians killed each year by bicycle, but it is worth mentioning.

But motorists put everyone around them in real, life-threatening danger every time they break traffic laws. It's a simple consequence of the size and speed of the vehicles. Therefore you can only go so far when you try to impose equal responsibility. It breaks down because automobiles have by far the greatest capability to harm others.

Although you keep trying to make some kind of argument that those who try to keep the focus on driver behavior first are somehow inconsistent and illogical, it's actually the reverse. There is a consistent principle: that faster, heavier, more powerful and deadly users of the road have the responsibility to protect the slower, smaller, and more vulnerable road users. If you follow that logic consistently, then drivers have by far the most responsibility, cyclists have a small amount (in proportion to their capacity to harm other cyclists and pedestrians), and pedestrians have but a sliver. The relative proportions are so huge that if you have an hour to spend talking about road safety, then you spend 59 minutes educating drivers, 55 seconds on cyclists, and 5 seconds on pedestrians.

It's about priorities. If you go into the hospital with cancer and a mild fungal infection, the doctor is going to spend 99% of the time with you treating your cancer. Oh, and you have a fungal infection, here's some medicine. Let's get back to what's killing you. It would be irrational to say "but...but...there's a fungal infection. That's just as bad as cancer!", which is the equivalent of what drivers argue in regards to cyclists.

Simply wrong. Someone concerned with safety will address the root causes in proportion to the harm they cause. Which means for practical purposes, virtually all of the discussion should be about drivers.

And let's be clear here on the subject of the principle of law. No one that I have ever seen has argued that motorists must follow all laws perfectly, as drivers often argue of cyclists. The argument is always that motorists should not put cyclists at risk. That often means following certain laws and respecting certain rights when they are on the road with cyclists, and their actions would otherwise threaten others' lives. It is a reasonable position, one supported by common sense and the sheer number of cyclists and pedestrians injured or killed by motor vehicles. It is an unreasonable position to claim that everyone else should change their behavior so that drivers don't feel picked on.

VTBike

I see. You don't care about safety as long as the person engaging in the unsafe act is the one who will be killed. That is pretty darn cold. I guess I support safety without splitting hairs as to how a death occurs.

I'm sorry, did anyone ever suggest otherwise? While this is true, it is still not a basis to also promote bicyclist safety. It just isn't. Your argument doesn't even make sense from an overall safety perspective.

What**********? That's not what I said. My beef is when people make ignorant comments such as, "The discussion ends there!" Big difference.

So the justification for not addressing cycling safety concerns is that there are finite resources. Well, unless you are a hypocrite you would have to agree that we should not build bicycle infrastructure because SO many more people drive and our resources are just too limited. See how arguments that are illogical quickly fall apart?

I'm surprised that I have to explain this, but unless you are a censorious clown, discussion is not a finite commodity. It's not for you to decide who gets to say what. I can understand allocation of finite resources, such as funding for public education campaigns, but you aren't talking about that. You are talking about limiting speech. That's what I have taken issue with.

Exactly. As bicycle advocates we should not censor someone who says: a) Motorists should not put themselves or others at risk; and b) Bicyclists should not put themselves or others at risk. But you feel entitled to demand censorship of the second part. Respectfully, I don't make such demands on others' speech.