Paul Barnard

The blame crap is for the sole purpose of eliciting a response like yours. The guy doesn't even ride a bicycle on public streets anymore. Ask yourself why he is still here in A&S. It's obvious, that it's not out of a deep and abiding concern or respect for cyclists. The answer is that he needs attention. He prefers negative attention and conflict.

FBinNY 

My CHILL OUT wasn't directed at you alone. It was simply an effort to encourage to move back from being so polarized and accept that we all have different outlooks.

FWIW I overall agree with Joey, that people (not just cyclists) need to take more ownership of the consequences of their actions. So I do my share of blaming the victim. The only difference is that I mute it when the victim has already suffered enough.

As a thought experiment, consider you're the parent or uncle of a young adult who, for example, goes out drinking with his buddies, and has a car accident or gets mugged, but comes out OK. Odds are that the conversation would include a, "What the %&$#&* were you thinking....".

If the outcome was terrible, ie. serious injury, odds are that while you may have the same thought, you'd suppress it under the circumstances.

We all do dumb things, and sometimes need to be challenged about them, and it often calls for some blaming of victims to help others avoid similar mistakes. It's not about blame, it's about object lessons.

So, it's about outlook. One may look at a cyclist death and focus on negligent drivers, or poor infrastructure. OTOH - I take those as a given and wonder if, in the same situation, how I could or would have arranged to come out OK.

livedarklions

No, it's not about outlook. It's about calling people names and implying they're so stupid that their extinction improved the gene pool.

Context is important, your thought experiment is an entirely different situation where I'm talking to someone I care about telling me they're engaging in dangerous behavior. Of course I'm going to try to shake them out of it. This is an internet forum where we're trying to engage in a dialogue about how we view the risks and benefits of different approaches to intersections. Joey wasn't imparting advice that anyone else wasn't saying, he was just calling dead people names and expressing how much smarter he is than they were.

I think you're grossly misdescribing what's been going on in this exchange. No one has suggested that you just focus on infrastructure or bad drivers as a cause. The reason I brought up the example I did was to discuss why the infrastructure can lead you to make mistakes precisely so people can avoid making those mistakes. People have died because they assume crosswalk=safer. It's important to know why that isn't the case so one can avoid the pratfall. Instead of talking about that, Joey took it on himself to use a question about naming that phenomenon as an excuse to insult people who have died.

By the way, Joey has also posted that if you get assaulted by a driver while riding your bike, you really have no right to complain because you know that's a risk you take on by riding your bike. That's just part of the endless stream of BS blame he's been spewing for the last few years. I like 5 years ago Joey, this incarnation has been quite different and really should have been banned a while back when he was posting regular diatribes about how no one should be bicycling at all. You weren't posting at the time, I suspect you've missed a lot of this..

I'd like to believe this picking over things that have actually happened for object lessons is a real thing here, but it generally degenerates into people assigning blame in order to prove it couldn't have happened to them. If you're actually trying to educate people about a particular risk, starting with "you're a dumbass deserving extinction if you..." is really not a good place to start. No one thinks thery're a dumbass, so now you've just told them they don't need to worry about this particular sort of mistake.

BTW, real accident investigation, which is a systematic attempt to draw object lessons, doesn't end with X made a mistake. The real question is why the person made the mistake and how do you prevent it. Saying "it's just simple" obviously isn't correct if people keep making the same mistake. I have a human mind, I find knowing the particular vulnerabilities of our decision making functions helps me be vigilant against making the kind of mistake we're talking about here. Calling people names doesn't..

Finally, I think you seem to be mixing me up with some sort of "it's always the fault of x or y" kind of person. Nothing I've ever said on this forum fits that description, and I think I've had arguments with every single type of monocausal advocate on A&S..

Dave Mayer

? There seems to be a lot of banter about rider 'rights' and 'entitlement' and 'blame' that permeates this entire thread. Fundamentally, there are no inherent 'rights', these are only codified privileges bestowed on you by the greater society. And these can change arbitrarily year to year. Nature or physics is completely devoid of such human constructs. If you impact a larger, faster object, then you'll get hurt.

So the very last thing you want to have while riding is a chip on your shoulder, regarding 'rights' and 'privileges'. Actually, you don't want to ride when contaminated by any emotions, including joy, fear, anger, etc. Safe riding is a Zen thing. Even the word: 'safe' is misleading, in that cycling is inherently a dangerous activity, relative to other leisure pastimes. There is no form of cycling that features less 'micro-morts' per hour than say reading a book. Every time you get on a bike there is a probability distribution of frequency of injury, and another distribution of severity of injury. If you ride a certain way, or in certain locations, then those distributions change.

I've only ridden with a couple of fellows with a strong sense of entitlement and justice while on the bike. That is, they knew their 'rights' and wanted to enforce then, often in confrontations with drivers. Both gone: RIP.

livedarklions

That might be, but I think the best thing I can do is to bring this back around to original point I was making with the example of the pedestrian in the crosswalk as he went out of his way to crap all over it.

The point is that we need to, as drivers, riders and pedestrians, be aware of how easy it is to be tricked into thinking that the way is clear when it is not. Our mental shortcuts pretty much automatically make a guess about what's in a blind spot that will seem very real at the time. Most stage magic is based on this tendency. The person I knew who stepped in front of a moving Caltrain was a very intelligent young woman so it really misses the point of what we can learn from her death to dismiss this as a Darwin candidate who didn't follow simple rules.

livedarklions

And I find that I'm safer if I selectively ignore aspects of that codification and just take the safest strategy for the situation. This often involves rolling through a stop sign when I know that waiting around will just make it more likely that I'll encounter other traffic and increase my odds of being hit by a larger, faster object. I also find that "asserting my right" to take the lane where a right turn is possible helps avoid getting right hooked. It is definitely possible to increase your danger by riding too timidly.

Paul Barnard

I just love it when this little bit of brilliance is put on display. The old law of gross tonnage is something we have to flippantly accept huh?

Daniel4

I don't see any cyclists in that photo.

The words of road-bullies in pickup trucks and SUVs or of people who accept them.

livedarklions

Yes, the number of posts where people talk to everybody else like they're a bunch of dummies throwing themselves randomly in front of moving motor vehicles for ideological reasons or a sense of entitlement or whatever is really getting tiresome.


Blah blah blah, dead right, blah blah blah. Cars are big, blah blah, blah.
Dubious anecdotes about entitled cyclists, repeat.

Paul Barnard

I thought the spirit of my post was evident. I'll see if I can do a better job of laying out my thoughts. Many motorists and even some bicyclists invoke the rule of gross tonnage. That is, they have the same mindset that I believe Dave is demonstrating with the quoted part of his post. They rather flippantly say, and I paraphrase, if you play on the road where there are bigger faster vehicles, unfortunate outcomes are to be expected and accepted.

What you see in the photo is cars that were demolished when they had the audacity to test the rule of gross tonnage with a tractor trailer rig. They sustained an impact with a larger, faster object. 4 people were killed and others were hurt. Oddly, nobody that I know of shrugged their shoulders and invoked the rule of gross tonnage. Quite the contrary. The nation mourned and called for justice.

I have strong distaste for those who selectively invoke the law of gross tonnage. Lemme know if that helps you better understand my post.

Dave Mayer

Some of these postings express a very alien mindset to me (particularly while I’m on the bike – 300 days per year), so that I had to carefully review every word. The language is rife with imprecise concepts such as ‘acceptance”, judgement and ‘justice’ and blame and ‘rules’.

While riding, you are completely and continuously aware of a multitude of potential risks which include moving objects of various masses, hardness and velocities, stationary objects, the road surface and the sensory feedback from your bike. So vibrations, brake feel, tire adhesion etc. There can no judgement regarding whether anything is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ (whatever that is), as this is a dangerous emotional distraction. Of course all of this is done without conscious thought, as if you are ‘thinking’ about what is going on around you, then your attention is on the thinking and not the external world.

Risks cannot be eliminated. Every action is a tradeoff.

I assume any talk about ‘justice’ applies to post-incident events. Absolutely, if a driver (or another cyclist) does something bone-headed causing injury, then you should take them to task with a debilitating scorched-earth lawsuit with the intent of draining every possession that they own, and preventing from being on the road for a long long time.

But while riding, any thoughts of ‘rights’ and ‘justice’ is dangerous.

livedarklions

You're trying so hard to make some grand pronouncements over a very simple question--obedience to signs and signals or no?-- that I literally have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

You really think much of anyone is riding around obsessed with thoughts of rights and justice? That's not the same thing as posting about them on a forum or filing law suits.

You seem to want to rail on somebody, but I don't know who you're thinking of.

Paul Barnard

That makes three of us.

JoeyBike

True.

I started cycling like a "bike messenger on amphetamines" when I was 15 yo. I've also done extensive cross country touring, self contained - 35 states and provinces. I "retired" from those practices in my early 60s without a scratch. Also 30 years of car-free life until 2 years ago. I figure 45 years of extensive cycling experiences buys me a ticket to voice my opinion here or anywhere on BF. So far the moderators seem to agree.

My concern and respect is for NEW cyclists who stumble upon this place - A&S - which is half reports of death and dismemberment and half "unicorns and rainbows". I feel they need a fair shot at real and practical safety advice, no matter if they abide by the rules or break every one of them.

I seem to be accused of trolling by other members. What a joke. In a place where "advice" includes: "Cycling on the road/street is no more dangerous than sleeping in your bed", "The sun low on the horizon does not affect the ability of motorists to see cyclists", "Cyclists bear no responsibility whatsoever for bad results when they purposely and willfully mix it up on roads and byways with motor vehicles, operated by all types of imperfect and flawed drivers", and best of all "Blame the road's INTERSECTIONS for killing cyclists instead of the cyclists judgement at those intersections." This kind of rhetoric is irresponsible and flat out DANGEROUS to new or inexperienced cyclists.

Like everyone here, I love attention. I can take it or leave it when it comes to conflict. I do not seek it but it does not bother me.

FBinNY 

Amen. My age and lifetime cycling experience are similar to Joey's.

Like him, my posts are taylored for the benefit of those most likely to benefit, and least likely to have the experience to already have soild opinions.

I also engage in other "dangerous" (I prefer "unforgiving") activities, and prefer their culture of "safety is the obligation of the guy with the most to lose".

By example, I scuba dive with mixed breathing gas vs air. So, the amount of oxygen will be different according to the planned dive. Because of the very real danger of having the wrong mix, there are strict protocols in place. After filling, each tank is analyzed, and that report affixed to the tank. So, my tanks are filled by reliable people, who doublecheck their work. Then before each dive I recheck each tank with my own analyzer, because it's my life and no one else's. FWIW I've never found a tank to be materially off spec ( over 200), but like all my fellow divers, I'll continue to check.

To all inexperienced cyclists ---- cycling is relatively safe, but has specific hazards and can be very unforgiving of rider error. There's plenty of room for improvement, which is why have advocacy, but you're living and riding in the world as it exists NOW, so adapt to it and ride smart.

IMO the blame game is for heirs and lawyers, and your job is to not give them anything to argue about.

livedarklions

I'm only saying this because you appear to want to defend Joey. I suggest you take a good look at his posting history over the last four years which includes his amusement at coal rolling bicyclists, an announcement that he was no longer riding his bicycle, and endless displays of the blame game against bicyclists who were actually murdered. He also posted a few "ha ha, dead cyclist" memes. His message for a good two years was people are damn fools if they bicycle because roads are war zones. See this thread if you think I'm exaggerating: I am no longer a cyclist! Don't miss me too badly.

He apparently fears portraying bicycling as unicorns and rainbows as encouraging dangerous behavior. That's BS. Cite any example of that happening anywhere. It's completely farfetched, and an obvious post hoc rationalization for the "don't bicycle" message he's obviously embarrassed by now. Also, he keeps claiming someone posted that cycling is no more dangerous than being in bed. I call bs on that, but even if a single person posted that once, so what? The overwhelming tone of A&S is, if anything, to exaggerate the level of danger. He insisted on calling roads a war zone, and that we deserved anything that happened to us if we were stupid enough to venture out on them.

And yeah, calling people Darwin candidates is trolling, and definitely the blame game at work. His only defense to that is to post his resume for the umpteenth time. Color me unimpressed.

FBinNY 

I'm not defending Joey. He is who he is and hasn't asked me to defend him, nor me him.

I'm just saying I agree with him in the big picture, though not necessarily in every detail.

I can't help that he seems to bug you, nor do I care. I try to focus on the message rather than the messenger, and try to speak to those who I might help, rather than those who neither want or need it.

So, yes, Joey's posts may be a bit like the cold shower after a sauna, but he's extremely experienced, and, IMO, one might do well to read for the point rather than the tone.

BikeLite

speaking of obeying traffic signals, I guess the thread on the recent run-over and stabbing got deleted by mods...wow.

work4bike

It got moved to P&R

JoeyBike

Nope.

My message, although easily misconstrued, is for every cyclist who mounts a bicycle to take five seconds before pushing down a single pedal, to just take a living breath of fresh air and say to themselves "This activity is potentially dangerous and sometimes deadly". Which it absolutely IS. Then, if one is WILLING to chance it, push off and go for that ride - and accept the consequences for whatever happens to them.

If a rider is ignorant of the risks, does not bother to educate themselves of the risks, rides off into the sunset "fat, happy, and stupid" while thinking about what they are going to cook for supper that evening while surfing the internet on their phone for a recipe completely oblivious to their surroundings - they DO NOT deserve to be injured or die. But they are still stupid.

livedarklions

Accept the consequences of what happens to them?! Why the hell is that any of your concern? If this friggin forum has any purpose, it's supposed to help avoid those "consequences". Seriously, who do you think you are? I can't imagine being so arrogant that I would think I know how people who've been the victim of a hit and run " should" feel about that. And I'll be damned if I'm just going to "accept" being deliberately close-passed and coal rolled.

Here's where you are a damn hypocrite. Your posts are so focused on calling people stupid, you don't even realize that what you've been criticizing is information about infrastructure which would actually help newer riders. Yes, it's a problem when people ride in front of a moving car, and at some trivially obvious level, the answer is for people to stop doing that (your simplistic rules). But assuming it just happened because they were stupid unreflective people is really idiotic and unhelpful--chances are they didn't even know they hadn't checked the lane. I'm as experienced a rider as you are, and I'm sure we're both aware of the possibility of traffic in the hidden lane. We're also confident enough to resist the impatient looks from drivers who are sitting there waiting for us to go. Neophytes, who you profess such concern for, are going to feel some pressure to take a mental short cut and make unwarranted assumptions about the screened lane being clear. They may very well be unaware they're doing that--they may not even notice that there's a second lane. That's why I think it's important to discuss all of the factors that make that situation hazardous and that people need to actually recognize that situation the first and every time they encounter it.

Calling people stupid, especially dead ones, doesn't help. If anything, all it does is get people to stop listening to what you have to say. "I don't need to worry about it because I'm not an idiot" is probably going to be the best reaction you'll get to that. Our long years of riding have made some things reflex, if you actually want to help new riders, maybe try to remember how you learned it instead of calling people stupid for not having those reflexes yet.

I think it's hilarious, btw, when I read this forum because there's some of you guys who seem to think there's zillions of inexperienced cyclists recklessly flying around the roads. I don't know where you are riding these days, but where I am, such people are pretty damn rare. Mostly, the new cyclists are, if anything, too timid.
​​​
Frankly, I'm just about out of a&s at this point because there's just too many people posting things that treat everyone else like idiots. Yes, we know cars are heavy, yes we know it's possible to get hit if you make a mistake, yes, we aren't any less dead if it's someone else's fault. You and the other scolding chorus members aren't telling anything we haven't heard a zillion times, and we're not any more dead than you are.

And if you want me to comb through your posts and pull quotes where you said people deserved what happened to them, I could if I had the time. Looks like you're basically disowning a bunch of the stuff you have posted over the last few years, but I don't expect you to admit that.

JoeyBike

^^That all comes with the territory. Wishing it ain't so, or denying it is a waste of energy. Wish into one hand, spit into the other, and see which one fills up first. You must know close passes are on your horizon if you cycle on roadways. Accepting it as unavoidable has always been my coping mechanism, until it wasn't worth it to me, as cars got larger with more cockpit distractions.

And I have a sense of humor. If someone really nails me with diesel exhaust that's THEIR problem. I laugh it off. I certainly KNEW that was coming eventually but decided to set out into traffic anyway. My fault as much as theirs. I have choices, I made mine knowing the ugly possibilities.

"If you can't see, you can't go" is not a "reflex". It is mandatory if a cyclist expects a long, happy life.

My city has a zillion cyclist begging for right hooks and close passes. Most of them in fact would not consider themselves "cyclists" at all. They are just using the vehicle they have to get over there. I doubt even one of them would be here on BF.
​​​
There is a "BLOCK" feature here you know. I for one would miss you, although I do have you blocked as well. If I'm in the mood I check your posts. Mostly I just ignore them. It's as easy as looking both ways before crossing a street!

If I got hozed running a red light some here would say I deserved it. If someone ventures across a highway travel lane without being CERTAIN the coast is clear, for whatever reason, part of the onus is on them, if not ALL of it. This does not translate into they "deserve" to be injured or worse. Perhaps there is some instance where I have said the dead cyclist "deserved" it, but I can't think of any.

Paul Barnard

How far does simply accepting things go? Any cyclist who gets hit by a motor vehicle should just accept it? What if it was intentional? Do we simply accept it when a drunk in a motor vehicle kills another motorist. NOLA is a violent town, should I simply accept it if I get robbed walking to work? Lots of drunks in NOLA, if one swerves onto a sidewalk restaurant, should we just accept it?

FBinNY 

I think we're falling into a semantics trap here.

There's a difference between "accepting" things, and "accepting" things.

One implying tacit approval, or that there's no need to change. The other being the acknowledgement that that's the way things are, and implying the need to adapt.

So, we have to read between the lines and look for intent and context rather than seek points to argue over.

FWIW - this thread is Advocacy & Safety. While advocacy may be important to change an unsatisfactory status quo, a focus on safely adapting to that status quo is equally important. Count Joey, myself, and others as being in that second camp. We're not opposed to advocacy, we're simply trying to help ensure that folks live long enough to see those benefits.

retswerb

An old boss of mine used to say "there's two truths" in situations like this. Sometimes there are more than two.

There's a truth here that drivers need to learn to share the road and to look out for cyclists. There's a truth that city planners and engineers need to create systems that protect the safety of all users, and work to improve locations that prove to be unsafe on a regular basis. And there's a truth that moment-by-moment, anyone who rides a bike needs to be vigilant for their own safety and assume that drivers, planners, and engineers have all conspired against us.

The first two truths there need to be communicated to non-cyclists, and could perhaps be considered more on the Advocacy side vs the third truth more on the Safety side and to be communicated to cyclists. It's fine - great! - for different folks to focus more on one side or the other, but it's sure foolish not to recognize that both sides are needed.