| Re: drivers speeding away
On Jan 26, 11:17 am, r15...@aol.com wrote:
> On Jan 25, 4:04 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Talk about putting the ball
> > > in the wrong hoop! Instead of be 'visible and predictable,'
> > > it should be 'keep your head up and your eyes open,
> > > and think ahead.' Instead of visibility, Vision. Visibility
> > > is a by-product of responsible riding anyway, and
> > > shouldn't be a prime directive; 'predictable' means
> > > different things to different people.
> > Can you imagine if we taught people to drive using the same logic?
> We do. It's called defensive driving ideology.
Baloney. Nobody - or at least, no competent teacher - begins teaching
fine points of defensive driving to a student who doesn't know the
rules of the road. The rules come first - things like drive on the
right, stop for stop signs, stop for red lights, proceed only when
clear, etc. If you don't follow basic rules, you can't possibly defend
against the chaos you'd cause.
>
> Can you imagine if we taught people to drive, or ride
> motorcycles, using your logic? "Just be visible and
> predictable for all the other drivers out there, and
> everything will work out swimmingly!! We'll teach
> you how to turn the steering wheel sharply in
> chapter 32, but you'll probably never need to!!"
>
> > "It doesn't matter what side of the freeway you use. Forget those
> > 'Wrong Way' signs. Just keep your eyes open."
> What a ridiculous straw man. Nobody said anything about
> ignoring traffic law being part of safe riding.
I'm responding to your straw man. Dozens of times, you've
characterized vehicular cycling as "JUST follow the rules and you'll do
fine." But AFAIK, it's _never_ taught that way. The official League
of American Bicyclists' curricula for its courses has _always_ included
theory and practice on evasive maneuvers. It's always had students out
in parking lots practicing panic stops, emergency turns etc. It's
always included information on spotting potential driver mistakes.
Dozens of times, I've explained that, but you seem incapable of either
believing it or retaining it.
Furthermore, you ignore the fact that, when teaching cycling, there
are many people who do NOT know the most basic rules. I can give many
more examples than I already have - like the sporty young man on a new
performance bike, snazzy cycling clothes, brand new helmet etc, on a
club ride who made a left turn by swerving first to the left gutter.
That sort of behavior MUST be corrected first, before we get into any
emergency maneuvers, let alone any "zen of traffic" mysticism.
>
> One who has faith that simply following the main pillars
> of 'vehicular cycling' ('be visible and predictable') will keep
> them safe in traffic has put all their eggs in the wrong basket.
^^^
And, as always, the "all" in the preceding sentence is a figment of
your imagination.
> Any twelve year-old jack donkey can ride down the
> road as part of the traffic system. The question is, what
> happens when the system breaks down. Will you be
> surprised, or will you be ready. That's really all that
> matters. Everything else is distraction.
Have you never seen a cyclist ride down the wrong side of a road,
facing traffic? Have you never seen a cyclist ride at night without
lights? Do you REALLY think it's "a distraction" to fail to correct
those mistakes?
If so, you're quite hopeless.
> Those heavily invested in 'vehicular cycling' ideology
> seem to have trouble even admitting that the traffic system
> is prone to breakdowns. Dangerous.
I find it telling that the guy who argues strenuously that the rules of
the road don't matter, is the same guy who proclaims that cycling is
dangerous.
It's not hard to see the cause-and-effect relationship!
- Frank Krygowski
|