|
Originally Posted by tjspiel
(Post 7167771)
If perhaps this thread is partially in response to the recent Critical Mass incidents
|
Originally Posted by recumelectric
(Post 7166030)
Here's my beef. It seems to me that all the antagonistic cyclists out there are no different than SUV drivers who think they own the road. (Granted, they have much more steel and can do more damage, so that's not my argument.)
Holy s***. Somebody call the news. |
Originally Posted by lil brown bat
(Post 7168352)
Exactly what incidents, plural, are you talking about?
Cause... each thread counts as a separate incident? |
Originally Posted by lil brown bat
(Post 7168352)
Exactly what incidents, plural, are you talking about?
Here's a link to a story about what happened in Seattle: http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/s...ves/144527.asp |
Originally Posted by huhenio
(Post 7166193)
Originally Posted by lil brown bat
(Post 7166079)
Commuter forums noob step 1: make a post whining about all those law-flouting cyclists.
...and so on and so on... :p:p |
Originally Posted by tjspiel
(Post 7169420)
Seattle and Times Square.
Here's a link to a story about what happened in Seattle: http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/s...ves/144527.asp Admittedly, I am no supporter of critical mass. To me, it should come as absolutely no suprise that someone would feel panicked and act in a primal and/or self-defensive manner (including running over whomever is in his way) to escape not the scene, but the mob of cyclists who have already demonstrated that they have little regard for the law or the rights of others around them. Suggesting that the driver was fleeing responsibility is premature. It is much more likely that he perceived that he may become seriously hurt or killed by the mob and was fleeing that possibility. Granted, the most self-defensive move is to sit tight and wait, but drivers should not have to do that just because hundreds of selfish cyclists operating in mob-mentallity have denied them that capability by show of force. I can't think of a more selfish or negative activity that cyclists could participate in than critical mass. I am all for sharing the road and assertively taking the privledges to which I am entitled by law; but I can recognize no "advocacy" in assertively (or aggressively) taking the privledges afforded to others by that same law. I seriously doubt that the conflict ridden events taking place all over the country are what the initial riders had in mind. If my car was corked, I would feel very panicked, indeed. Especially if I had my family with me. I would consider the law to be the last thing in that mob's mentality and would be prepared to defend myself in any way necessary, including runing over the offenders in order to escape the mob. I acknowledge the problems associated with this viewpoint, but I would not have been the one to set the terms of the conflict as being outside of the law in the first place and would sincerely see such actions as being self defense. It simply amazes me that critical mass defenders can expect to behave outside the law and then complain and be suprised when their vicitims make the same decision. |
Originally Posted by MMACH 5
(Post 7169498)
commuter forums noob step 3: noobs calling out newbs who call out n00bs
...and so on and so on... :p:p |
Originally Posted by tjspiel
(Post 7169420)
Seattle and Times Square.
Here's a link to a story about what happened in Seattle: http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/s...ves/144527.asp |
Originally Posted by Sawtooth
(Post 7169586)
Admittedly, I am no supporter of critical mass. To me, it should come as absolutely no suprise that someone would feel panicked and act in a primal and/or self-defensive manner (including running over whomever is in his way) to escape not the scene, but the mob of cyclists who have already demonstrated that they have little regard for the law or the rights of others around them.
|
Originally Posted by lil brown bat
(Post 7169643)
Yeah, no, I don't think OP meant to use a case of a cop tackling a cyclist and a hit-and-run driver as examples of how bad cyclists are. Could be wrong, but...
|
Originally Posted by lil brown bat
(Post 7169682)
I don't buy that for a second. Reason why: I commute in a city where driving conditions are claustrophobic and most motorists "demonstrate that they have little regard for the law or the rights of others around them". Drivers routinely get stuck in place for several light cycles, and often it's because some other driver committed some stupid stunt and now traffic is wedged. In situations like that, which are very common in many cities, you don't generally get drivers flipping out and "panicking" and "acting in a primal and/or self-defensive manner" because they're surrounded by a mob of cars. In the rare cases when they do, nobody, nobody, except their lawyers, tries to make the excuse that they "panicked". You're in traffic, nowhere to go...you don't just start ramming people. You just don't do that. At least...you don't do that to people in other cars. If they're on two wheels or two legs, apparently, there's no shortage of people who will make excuses for you.
CM happens in all sorts of cities including cities where drivers generally obey the laws. |
Originally Posted by mercator
(Post 7169612)
Commuter forum == 90% noobs:D
|
Originally Posted by lil brown bat
(Post 7169682)
I don't buy that for a second. Reason why: I commute in a city where driving conditions are claustrophobic and most motorists "demonstrate that they have little regard for the law or the rights of others around them". Drivers routinely get stuck in place for several light cycles, and often it's because some other driver committed some stupid stunt and now traffic is wedged. In situations like that, which are very common in many cities, you don't generally get drivers flipping out and "panicking" and "acting in a primal and/or self-defensive manner" because they're surrounded by a mob of cars. In the rare cases when they do, nobody, nobody, except their lawyers, tries to make the excuse that they "panicked". You're in traffic, nowhere to go...you don't just start ramming people. You just don't do that. At least...you don't do that to people in other cars. If they're on two wheels or two legs, apparently, there's no shortage of people who will make excuses for you.
(And notice I made no reference to cars, bikes, peds, or whatever.) |
Originally Posted by tjspiel
(Post 7169752)
Not the same at all. There's a difference between being stuck in traffic because of an accident
In the Seattle incident, no one did anything to this driver or his car until he started ramming people. So they got in his way -- they didn't threaten him or do anything to him. What exactly did he "panic" about? If I'm driving and a bunch of pedestrians cross in front of me, against the light, would it be understandable for me to say I "panicked" and start ramming them? Think about what you're saying here. |
Originally Posted by lil brown bat
(Post 7169878)
Who said anything about an accident? People end up in grid-locked traffic all the time. They don't know why. It could be an accident, but it probably isn't, and in any case, they don't know. And it's really rare that you see them flipping out and ramming other cars. Cars get blocked by other cars all the time. A driver who loses it in those situations doesn't have people making all kinds of excuses for him/her. So how, again, is this different?
In the Seattle incident, no one did anything to this driver or his car until he started ramming people. So they got in his way -- they didn't threaten him or do anything to him. What exactly did he "panic" about? If I'm driving and a bunch of pedestrians cross in front of me, against the light, would it be understandable for me to say I "panicked" and start ramming them? Think about what you're saying here. A group of strangers impeding your path in an unexpected way can easily be interpreted as "threatening" even they don't say a word or act in an overtly threatening manor. In the fall on my way home, I have on several occasions encountered a group of teenagers playing football in the street. My expectation when I first saw them is that they would temporarily suspend their game, move to one side and allow me to pass. That's what I would have done when I was their age. I learned quickly that while they might quit playing, they didn't intend to move out of the way. They acted as if they owned that street and weren't about to get out of the way for a cyclist. They let me pass but it was up to me to wind my way through them. Now if they had suddenly lined up across the street blocking my way, you can bet that I would have interpreted that as a threat. Just because you know that CMers don't intend to hurt anyone, doesn't mean that everyone else does. |
Originally Posted by tjspiel
(Post 7169991)
Just because you know that CMers don't intend to hurt anyone, doesn't mean that everyone else does. |
Originally Posted by cod.peace
(Post 7166274)
Take an ******* out of an SUV and put him/her on a bike and you've got an ******* cyclist, they're not going to suddenly become a better person.
I think what many on both sides of the motorist/cyclist equation fail to consider is that there is no US vs. THEM. That makes these people on both sides equal. Equally wrong. As road users, there is only US. |
Originally Posted by CommuterRun
(Post 7170446)
:beer:
I think what many on both sides of the motorist/cyclist equation fail to consider is that there is no US vs. THEM. That makes these people on both sides equal. Equally wrong. As road users, there is only US. |
Originally Posted by CommuterRun
(Post 7170446)
:beer:
I think what many on both sides of the motorist/cyclist equation fail to consider is that there is no US vs. THEM. That makes these people on both sides equal. Equally wrong. As road users, there is only US. It is us vs. them. |
Originally Posted by huhenio
(Post 7171446)
Honnking the horn and swerving to intimidate me is something that i cannot accomplish on a bicycle if i wanted to.
It is us vs. them. |
Originally Posted by tjspiel
(Post 7169752)
CM happens in all sorts of cities including cities where drivers generally obey the laws.
|
Originally Posted by recumelectric
(Post 7166030)
This thread is sure to antagonize, but I'm going for it anyway. Probably, I'll have to argue some rounds, just give up on the hopeless, and then kill it off.
Here's my beef. It seems to me that all the antagonistic cyclists out there are no different than SUV drivers who think they own the road. (Granted, they have much more steel and can do more damage, so that's not my argument.) I've been reading various stuff about U-lock assaults/vandalism, pissing in peoples' gas tanks, deliberately blocking up traffic, and carrying weapons while looking for trouble. I do understand the need for self-defense when attacked, so don't get me wrong. What I take issue with is the idea of knocking off someone's rearview or denting their car when they p---ed you off. Most of this sentiment seems to come from areas where bicycling is highly endorsed and commonplace. I'm reminded of the radicals "spiking trees" in order to kill loggers who were just doing their jobs. (BTW, some of us actually use products made from trees. Not to mention the fact that the local economies where these incidents occured benefited greatly from logging.) I also understand that some of this is venting and joking. Unfortunately, there are folks who take this all way too seriously. I'm not entirely sure of the demographic on this forum, but it seems more "young," as in 20-somethings, who are often in college and trying to live up to some idealistic ideal. I went through college listening to various "revolutionaries" who were really just angry, mean people in general. They were definitely revolting...against what, in particular, I still don't know. But they were happy to attach themselves to any trendy cause and raise a stink. There doesn't need to be open warfare between cars/SUV's and bicycles in order for things to change. In fact, that attitude is antagonistic and provokes a bunch of police action, bad press, and legislation that punishes all of us. BTW, I actually drive my car sometimes. I look out for cyclists. The hostility isn't necessary. 1. This is the Internet, it's main purpose is venting and entertainment. It pays not to take everything you read here seriously. Most people are far more brave/obnoxious behind a keyboard than in any other aspect of life. Grain of salt. 2. Idiots will always be around, whether we like it or not. Sometimes they are on bicycles, sometimes they are in cars, sometimes they are pedestrians. It always astonishes me on fora such as this one to read posts where people seem to think all cyclists are saints or must behave like "good little cyclists so those big bad drivers don't hate us". In reality, the people who broke the laws or acted like idiots on their bikes are probably the same people who did the same thing in their car on another day. 3. The only real solution to this problem is the very "bunch of police action" that everyone seems so afraid of. Unfortunately, our accountability-phobic society seems to be moving away from that, meaning that the idiot problem is only going to become more pronounced as time goes on. For the moment, however, can any of the people whining about the idiots tell me why having the police simply remove them from the road (either by legislation or sheer force) would be a bad thing? |
Have you actually seen someone doing all those things you mentioned? I HEAR about them, but never actually witnessed it.
|
Originally Posted by westlafadeaway
(Post 7177189)
Have you actually seen someone doing all those things you mentioned? I HEAR about them, but never actually witnessed it.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:20 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.