01-29-2007, 08:59 AM
|
#39 (permalink)
|
| Guest | Re: drivers speeding away
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> > Furthermore, you're bonkers. Most of the car-bike wrecks
> > suffered by experienced adult cyclists occur when
> > the cyclist is riding predictably according to the rules
> > of the road.
>
> That's fearmongering. Most "experienced adult cyclists" do ride
> pretty much according to the rules of the road. If they do happen to
> experience a car-bike wreck, that's often what they will have been
> riding.
You just repeated my statement, which you labeled
'fearmongering.' Your statement is just as much
fearmongering as mine.
>Most "experienced adult cyclists" do ride
> pretty much according to the rules of the road.
Exactly. And how many
of them took EC classes or read the book? Very small
percentage. How are you going to serve these cyclists--
by teaching them the importance of riding according
to the rules of the road, which they already do? Brilliant!
> If they do happen to
> experience a car-bike wreck, that's often what they will have been
> riding [according to the rules of the road].
Yup. These car-bike collisions tend to occur at the
confluence of driver mistake and _cyclist inattention_.
Experienced riders minimize these occurrences through
increasing and maintaining their level of awareness, not
by increasing and maintaining their level of rule-following.
Isn't it obvious what the key variable is? And messengers
typically run hundreds of thousands of lights without incident but
get tagged while daydreaming in a green light intersection.
Isn't it obvious what the key variable is, and what the key
variable isn't? At some point those who continue to refuse
to understand the most self-evident truths about traffic
cycling will just have to get left behind as the rest of
the class moves on.
> But there is not much to fear in that statement, because - as
> explained and documented many times in these discussions - most
> "experienced adult cyclists" will never get into a serious car-bike
> wreck. It's just not that bad out there, despite your fear and your
> fearmongering.
If you ride a lot for a long time it is not unlikely that
you will be injured in some substantial fashion at some
point in a bike-related injury. Car-bike collisions are
the worst and can have devastating consequences.
Avoiding them is the most important task we have.
For experienced riders, everything else amounts to
pomp and circumstance, sound and fury. Some
people understand this and some people don't.
I don't agree that it's 'fearmongering' to speak truth to
fellow cyclists. You sound like Dick Ch*n*y with that.
Also, it's weird getting lectured on how bad
it is or isn't 'out there' by a guy whose bike has no doubt
been hanging on a hook in the garage for several
weeks at least.
> > These collisions occur because cyclists
> > are often overlooked by drivers, no matter
> > how or where they ride, just as drivers overlook
> > motorcyclists and other cars;
>
> "Often overlooked"? Less often than pedestrians are overlooked. Less
> often than motorcycles are overlooked. Less often than other cars are
> overlooked.
Do you honestly believe that? What magical property
do cyclists possess that makes them harder to overlook
than cars and motorcycles? Is it the aura of self-righteousness?
> Not often enough to cause any large number of fatalities
> or serious injuries. Why the fearmongering?
>
> > Clearly, maintaining that level of awareness is of primary
> > importance, and everything else--from a safety
> > standpoint mind you--is secondary, including
> > rule-following.
>
> Ah. "Ride whereever you like on the road, Johnny. Just remember, as
> you ride facing traffic and blow through red lights, please maintain
> awareness."
>
> Such pap.
>
> Again: On these newsgroups, I've been saying that one should follow
> the rules of the road, and I've presented much evidence that proper
> cycling is plenty safe.
>
> You long been claiming that cycling is dangerous. And we see you now
> believe following the rules of the road is not particularly important.
>
> The cause and effect is certainly easy to understand!
Sorry, I'm just not a very clear writer sometimes.
You keep repeating the straw man that I would tell
beginners to forget about traffic laws. Setting aside for
a moment that nearly all beginners would be able to
figure the basics of traffic cycling (ride according to
basic rules with traffic not facing it) for themselves,
as I did when I was about 11 and headed downtown
to buy model airplanes at Levine's, that hypothetical lesson
should take about 15 seconds. The rest is anticipating
motorist mistakes, focusing awareness where and why, which
informs the decision of lateral positioning and everything
else. Without this vigilance, the rule-following framework
means little--it is actually safer to ride like a madman
anarchist with a high level of awareness than to ride
according to the rules of the road with one's head in
the clouds.
If you don't disclose to beginners what the key variable
is in their personal cycling safety--their own awareness --
then it seems to me you're just shooting smoke up
their asses. And don't kneejerk your way to the conclusion
that recognizing awareness as the key variable means
completely writing off the utility of rule-following, because
it doesn't.
I'll just repeat this part. A person can ride (1) without
awareness and not according to the rules of the road,
(2) without awareness and according to the rules of the
road, (3) with awareness and not according to the rules
of the road, or (4) with awareness and according to the
rules of the road. I know that 4 is safer than 3 which is
safer than 2 which is safer than 1. I know this because
of my particular background and experience.
You must believe that 2 is safer than 3 if you think that
plugging into the system is more important to cyclist safety than
awareness. In which case the beginners you teach are
ill-served.
Robert
|
|
|  |