171–180 of 189 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So do you wear body armor and a helmet when out walking? If not, why not?
If I walked at 30km/h on the streets I would definitely wear one The poster in another comment says he wears helmet and body protections when skying, I think it's just common sense and not wanting to suffer sever consequences for no real reason. I used to wear an helmet when skating. Why bikers think they are the only immortal beings on this planet?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s interesting to me: As a fellow motorcyclist, I agree with your philosophy wholeheartedly. But most bicyclists (who are arguably at more risk from a car/truck than a motorcyclist) disagree with this just as wholeheartedly. I seriously wonder why this dichotomy exists, especially as bicycles are gaining electric motors capable of propelling them at higher and higher speeds.
Why do you claim that most bicyclists espouse some extremely specific philosophical viewpoint? Have you surveyed a representative sample of cyclists or something? It's just extremely weird to me to make such a sweeping claim about a large group you don't count yourself in.
For example, discussing almost hitting a bicyclist on a 70mph road at night with the cyclist wearing dark colors with no reflectors or tail light:
>This is absolutely your fault. You're driving too fast for the conditions. You're the one who can't see what's ahead; you're the one who has to drive slower.
And
> It is not their responsibility to ensure you drive at a pace such that you can stop before striking an obstacle that was hard to see. Should we require pedestrians using the road (like the one without shoulders) to dress in bright colors as well?
And from some other threads:
> >Her not wearing a helment not only derailed her life, but it caused major problems in the lives of everyone around her.
> Blame the victim? How about the driver, was it not his/her fault rather than your sisters?
Here's from someone else:
> While momentum argument is real, my personal philosophy as a daily commuting biker in France is "I'm the more exposed to risk and the more hated road user, so don't get in the way of cars and don't ever dare touch pedestrians"
> That being said, yes I do pass red light when I have good clearance and I don't "emergency brake by courtesy" for pedestrians that are not already engaged in crosswalks or clearly far from my course.
> Theses two paragraphs are perfectly compatible IMHO. It's just that in order to play with the rules you must know and accept them and be aware that you are doing something borderline. And by borderline I mean something specifically NOT dangerous to others and yourself. If it's dangerous it's just plain dumb and irresponsible.
And a justification for breaking the law:
> I was once hit by a taxi while stopped at a light. He he did a right hook turn straight into me. This is why I don't stop at lights if I don't have to, and why I always get towadd the middle lane when I'm biking past a potential right turn zone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> held to the higher standard This I disagree with. For better or worse, we are typically the ones who are riding on roads designed and built for them. We need to be held to the same standards, if not higher standards as motorcyclists and bicyclists, as we're intentionally playing in their turf, without their safety equipment. If a bicyclist is careless, they are both stupid and negligent. If a car driver is careless…
>> held to the higher standard > This I disagree with. Well the law and society disagree with you. The type of reasoning is very ubiquitous too. The more dangerous thing you are operating the more responsibility you have. We generally have morals that align to it being worse to take someone else's life than your own, though we don't encourage either. A car can do much more damage to others than a motorcycle can. A mo…
At the end of the day, the only person you can depend upon to keep yourself safe is you. You can hope everyone else is doing what they can to avoid injuring you, but the most you can do is hope. The responsibility for remaining safe ultimately falls to you (regardless of your mode of transportation - there's always a bigger vehicle).
We can argue legal and moral responsibility until we're blue in the face, but at the end of the day it won't make a dead cyclist any less dead.
The motorcyclist idiom "The car always has the right of weight." is spread about for a reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The list of potential actions another road user can do includes malicious punishment passing, failing to stop behind you, and intentional collisions. There is nothing the rider can do to stop these without stopping riding altogether. You also can't brake to avoid a car that goes into the side of you. At some point, you have to trust others to obey the rules of the road. An article like this is not zero-sum, it doesn'…
> You also can't brake to avoid a car that goes into the side of you. I wear a biker tailbone protector and a back protector + an helmet when I go snowboarding and I'm an amateur snowboarder at best that rarely goes in the park and rides at mediocre speed. Why I usually don't see cyclists wear some of them protections?
2. A big difference is downhill versus (mostly) flat. I only wear my helmet about 10-20% of the time when I'm ski touring. Downhill bikers wear all sorts of padding & protectors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
here is a tip: just drive a car. I understand that there are things you can do to lower the chances of getting hit, but at the end of the day there is way more risk associated with this mode of transportation.
Only safer because of all the other motorists. So we're stuck in a transportation arms race now and the only way to win is to pilot larger and heavier hunks of steel. Ok I'll start driving an APC so I don't even notice my next high speed collision with a car, maybe then I'll drag the flaming wreck behind my war machine for a few miles without realizing it. The visibility out of this contraption just isn't that great.…
we are all make mistakes on the road. small or big, the consequence of that mistakes are far greater when you are on 2 wheels. It’s not even about size or mass, it’s about the fact that your body is going to be projected into a tree/a car/sidewalk etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not saying this applies to you and GP, but there are those of us who absolutely hate cyclists on the road at all (bike lanes are fine) because many of them have an entitled mentality and indeed, don't seem to care about their own safety, let alone the rules of the road. Just this morning I had two cyclists cut horizontally across at 40 MPH street in front of me and other drivers. Many of them weave between cars…
> Many of them weave between cars or treat traffic signals as suggestions. Basically they want to be treated like normal traffic when it suits them and ignore laws when they want to. I don't want to defend this but rather explain this. Legally we are neither pedestrians nor normal traffic. But there is no explicit law for cyclists. You have to be both and it depends which situations it you are in, which typically fal…
> Frankly, I value my safety over your convenience. That's what it comes down to.
That is quite natural, although with respect I must say it does illustrate my comments about an entitlement mentality, particularly since it is the cyclist who has voluntarily chosen to put themselves in such a dangerous situation. What many cyclists don't understand is that I value your safety as well, very much so.
That is why things like this:
> So why do cyclists not stop at stop signs? Because sitting at a stop sign is dangerous.
> Another common example is riding close to the middle of the road on shared roads.
...are incredibly frustrating. The reason why we have road laws at all is primarily to make driving behavior predictable. If people drive unpredictably, it raises the risk for everyone. On top of the inherent risks of driving a vehicle which does not have the speed and acceleration to be on the road in the first place.
Do cyclists care that cars might have to swerve into a ditch or another car to avoid them if they are cycling erratically? As far as I can see, they don't. Do they care if their cycling might delay commutes for dozens or hundreds of people? I commend you for being open about the fact that you seemingly do not.
Fundamentally, all of the arguments cyclists make would apply to someone walking on the road or riding a skateboard down it. Yes, it is incredibly dangerous. Fundamentally and inalterably so. It is indefensible when motorists invade bike lanes. They should be fined for that. That is the space for bikes. Sidewalks are the space for pedestrians. The road is the space for cars. (I am speaking from what I see as the logical perspective, not the legal perspective.)
I have been to places like India where there are basically no rules followed about who can be on the road, riding what, or how they are driving. It is total chaos and utterly terrifying. I am incredibly glad it is not like that in the US.
I agree with the need for bike lanes where bikes are heavily used (or if there is good evidence of latent demand for them if bike lanes existed). It often does not make financial sense to build them where they would be used infrequently, as that money could be used for other forms of public transit. Purely from a safety perspective, in my view, where bike lanes are not built it would be better policy for cyclists to cycle on the sidewalk rather than the road, because at least if a bicycle hits a pedestrian there is a low risk of fatality.
I really do appreciate your explaining this so calmly and neutrally however, as I find the self-righteous fury of so many cyclists very annoying as, from my perspective, they are the problem. For some reason this is a really charged issue for many people. Road rage all around, I suppose.
As a driver, a huge 20-ton truck is a very noticeable personal danger. Once seen, you make sure that you know where it is at all times when you're near enough to be 'damaged' by it.
On the other hand, a cyclist/motorcyclist, even when seen, is assessed as a 'negative danger'. That is, the cyclist is more at risk from you, rather than you from him, whether or not a collision actually occurs.
This means that a cyclist can be disregarded as a danger threat, and may be 'blocked out' to some extent. The amount of blocking out, I would expect, is a function of gradation amongst other present threats. In other words, if a huge truck is present, you're more likely to 'unsee' the cyclist.
This all happens subconsciously, and is just part of our evolution over millions of years as a species. As such, it probably means that we need to find ways to produce an 'un-natural' outcome rather than the current 'natural' situation..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bicyclists suffer political disability under [typical US] traffic laws. Bicyclists are not afforded a full traffic lane when traveling. Bicyclists are prohibited from the highest quality roads. Bicyclists are required to ride on the shoulder. Even the best laid bike lanes don't give cyclists the right of way. Many many bike routes are shared with pedestrians. Motorcyclists on the other hand enjoy first class status u…
> Bicyclists suffer political disability under [typical US] traffic laws. Yes, but, > Bicyclists are not afforded a full traffic lane when traveling. Bicyclists are prohibited from the highest quality roads. Bicyclists are required to ride on the shoulder. This isn't true anywhere I've lived in the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cyclist rather than motorcyclist here, and that's correct. You read the body language of cars. If you pay attention - full attention with your head up on the situation, and not on your music or phone conversation - you can read what cars don't notice you, which ones do and will yield, and which ones do but will aggressively move first. You adjust your speed and path to accommodate for that as best as you can, case by…
I think that personal responsibility goes both ways. I love cycling. I used to drive my daughter to school every day. Whatever vehicle I am operating (or even if I am walking), I should be paying attention as much as I can. Yes, the stakes are much higher for pedestrians and cyclists. Yes, it is much easier to zone out when driving. Adding in texting while driving, and we get more of those short-term memory effects.…
Even the ones who are trying to drive cautiously fundamentally accelerate much faster and move faster and have 3000 lbs on me.
We need highly separated infrastructure in cities or an extremely low speed limit (15mph) in cities on non car only roads.
No amount of good will and mutual responsibility is going to solve this problem.
As a motorcyclist and defensive driver I find these kind of articles worrying, because they imply that riders are rolling around trusting other people not to hit them. The first rule of motorcycling, that you accept when you swing your leg over a bike, is that no matter whose fault any collision might be, it is your responsibility and yours alone to anticipate and avoid all such incidents. "But he pulled out in front…
It’s interesting to me: As a fellow motorcyclist, I agree with your philosophy wholeheartedly. But most bicyclists (who are arguably at more risk from a car/truck than a motorcyclist) disagree with this just as wholeheartedly. I seriously wonder why this dichotomy exists, especially as bicycles are gaining electric motors capable of propelling them at higher and higher speeds.
1. Stopping and going on a bicycle is much more painful and leads to more risk taking behavior.
2. A cyclists own energy isn't nearly as scary as a motorcycle. I often find myself modeling accidents as "what if I ran into this stationary thing" which on a motorcycle you want to be preparing for as it is more likely and higher impact but on a bike. Less so. Unfortunately a moving car hitting you is the more likely scenario. Also on a motorcycle you're managing the traction of the wheels through turns, something I've rarely thought about on a bicycle. So you're just in a lower effort more vigilant headspace.
3. Cars don't feel a constant compulsion to pass motorocycles nor "go before the cyclist can slow them down". So I think the constant back and forth "getting fucked" has setup this bizarre altruistic punishment mindset in both cars and cyclists that leads to fuck bikes on the car side and fuck the laws on the bike side.