headers
Paul Cooley | 1 Apr 2006 06:21

Re: Treat-cyclists-special crowd gets it backwards, again

On Friday 31 March 2006 11:44 am, J. Bruce Fields wrote:

I think those are both good points.  However, I think most drivers are 
unconsciously looking for reasons to feel nervous around cyclists so that 
they can further the argument that bicyclists should be kept on trails.  I've 
actually heard the "bicyclists are out there running red lights" argument 
from people.

I think that most people are concerned that they might run over a bicyclist in 
a moment of inattention, and everyone, deep down inside, would rather be able 
to blame it on the cyclist.  Now I know that even the most drug-addled 
teenager who hates just about everything (and I apologize for the caricature) 
does not want my blood on his low-rider Honda Civic.  But the less reason I 
can give him or her for feeling nervous around me, or for justifying wanting 
me off the street, the better.  If every bicyclist seemed to be law-abiding 
and bicycling safely, then drivers would be put in a position of accepting us 
as part of the traffic flow and accepting 100% of the responsibility for 
accidents.  (Which, of course, they should be doing anyway).  Seeing a few, 
or many, cyclists breaking the law sets up more of an us vs. them mentality, 
and somewhere in the twisted psyche of the motorist makes it more of the 
bicyclist's fault if an accident occurs, even if the accident is not through 
the fault of the individual cyclist.

Paul

> I've become increasingly skeptical of this sort of argument, if for no
> other reason than that drivers have a responsibility to drive safely
> regardless of whatever everybody else does, and I don't like to give the
> impression of condoning driving badly just because somebody else put you
> in a bad mood.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 18 comments |
headers
Nualle Schallenberger | 2 Apr 2006 07:37
Picon
Favicon

Framing the issue seems to be the issue (Was: Treat-cyclists-special blahblahblah)

Paul, I think you were trying to steer a middle course
and I laud you for the instinct. Nonetheless, your
response bothered me deeply.

>Paul> [snip] I think most drivers are unconsciously
looking for reasons to feel nervous around cyclists so
that they can further the argument that bicyclists
should be kept on trails.  [snip] I think that most
people are concerned that they might run over a
bicyclist in a moment of inattention, and everyone,
deep down inside, would rather be able to blame it on
the cyclist. <<

Sure they would. Car size is an arms race. People buy
bigger cars because they fear the consequences of
getting hit by the people who've already bought bigger
cars. Etc. ad absurdum.

That moment of inattention is not a reason to protect
drivers from their effects, it's a reason to get tough
about enforcement of current law.  They chose a mobile
fortress to get around in, it's their responsibility
to make sure they don't harm anybody with it. If
they're not up to the task, let 'em make due with a
mode they can handle safely. There are plenty of
choices available.

>Paul> [snip] If every bicyclist seemed to be
law-abiding and bicycling safely, then drivers would
be put in a position of accepting us as part of the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 17 comments |
headers
eco_milage_buster_2005 | 3 Apr 2006 06:28
Picon
Favicon

Scientists Focus on Global Warming

Again and again.   

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060403/ap_on_sc/global_warming_7

It would be nice to see something done in my lifetime.  Delay 
after delay "drives" me nuts!  So tiring to me seeing all this 
grabbing at straws to keep klunker death machines on the road.

"go right ahead and nuke us Iran; we will smother you first with 
global warming!" ;-) "  

Chris Jordan

  Problem?  Email:  CarFree-owners@...

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CarFree/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    CarFree-unsubscribe@...

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Tom Frost Jr. | 4 Apr 2006 12:38
Picon
Favicon

Re: Framing the issue seems to be the issue (Was: Treat-cyclists-special blahblahblah)

Nualle advocates, in one breath, getting tough about "enforcement of 
current law" (which is what would happen under my proposed 
Bicyclists' Rights Triad http://www.newmilfordbike.com/Triad.htm ), 
but then, in another breath, apparently whines about current law by 
saying that it should "redress the imbalance of power". 

That's a contradictory framing. Therefore, I rest my case that "treat-
cyclists-special blahblahblah" is the list incrowd's favorite issue.  

- TF       

--- In CarFree@..., Nualle Schallenberger <nualle <at> ...> 
wrote:
>
> Paul, I think you were trying to steer a middle course
> and I laud you for the instinct. Nonetheless, your
> response bothered me deeply.
> 
> 
> >Paul> [snip] I think most drivers are unconsciously
> looking for reasons to feel nervous around cyclists so
> that they can further the argument that bicyclists
> should be kept on trails.  [snip] I think that most
> people are concerned that they might run over a
> bicyclist in a moment of inattention, and everyone,
> deep down inside, would rather be able to blame it on
> the cyclist. <<
> 
> Sure they would. Car size is an arms race. People buy
> bigger cars because they fear the consequences of
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 16 comments |
headers
whistling_lass | 4 Apr 2006 21:48
Picon
Favicon

Re: Framing the issue seems to be the issue (Was: Treat-cyclists-special blahbla

If anyone on this list is an older sibling, you might remember feeling
unfairly targeted.  You know how it is, the younger sibling starts
something: teasing, hitting, etc.  You fight back, and then YOU get
the blame for it.  "You're older, you should know better."  Your
younger sib sits in the background smirking.  He or she has gotten off
the hook.  You're supposed to be responsible for your behavior AND the
younger sibs, apparently.

Well, that's how I feel about some of the threads on this list.  If
two cars have an accident, which one is at fault?  You wouldn't know
unless you heard the details of the incident, or were a witness, etc.
 But if I said that an accident happened between a car and a bike,
lots of people on this list assume the motorist is at fault.  Just b/c
he's bigger.

I am certainly pissed off when cars ARE at fault, harm or kill a
cyclist, and then nothing is done about it.  That's not fair.  In
cases like that, the cyclist is unfairly targeted.

But it's just as unfair to assume that a bike can blow through
stoplights, stop signs, ride the wrong way, etc. and be totally off
the hook if something happens.

Humans thrive on predictability.  Accidents happen when humans act
unpredictably.  Nobody expects someone to slam on their breaks in the
middle of an interstate.  Nobody expects someone NOT to stop at a stop
sign.  Nobody expects the oncoming vehicle to veer into your lane.  

So, in an accident involving a cyclist and a motorist, you can't know
for sure who was at fault until you know the whole story.  Hell, in my
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
wombatgrrl | 4 Apr 2006 22:05
Picon

Re: Re: Framing the issue seems to be the issue (Was: Treat-cyclists-special blahbla

It's happened to me several times that I have had a close call with a car
and had made eye contact with the driver. They always say "I didn't see
you". And I believe them.  You will THINK that they see you just because
you're making eye contact with them, but this is not the case. People can
look at you, but their mind is somewhere else. My only point here is, don't
rely on eye contact and assume that they see you because because you looked
at each other.

On 4/4/06, whistling_lass <whistling_lass@...> wrote:
>
> If anyone on this list is an older sibling, you might remember feeling
> unfairly targeted.  You know how it is, the younger sibling starts
> something: teasing, hitting, etc.  You fight back, and then YOU get
> the blame for it.  "You're older, you should know better."  Your
> younger sib sits in the background smirking.  He or she has gotten off
> the hook.  You're supposed to be responsible for your behavior AND the
> younger sibs, apparently.
>
> Well, that's how I feel about some of the threads on this list.  If
> two cars have an accident, which one is at fault?  You wouldn't know
> unless you heard the details of the incident, or were a witness, etc.
> But if I said that an accident happened between a car and a bike,
> lots of people on this list assume the motorist is at fault.  Just b/c
> he's bigger.
>
> I am certainly pissed off when cars ARE at fault, harm or kill a
> cyclist, and then nothing is done about it.  That's not fair.  In
> cases like that, the cyclist is unfairly targeted.
>
> But it's just as unfair to assume that a bike can blow through
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
J. Bruce Fields | 4 Apr 2006 22:17

Re: Re: Framing the issue seems to be the issue (Was: Treat-cyclists-special blahbla

On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 04:05:49PM -0400, wombatgrrl wrote:
> It's happened to me several times that I have had a close call with a car
> and had made eye contact with the driver. They always say "I didn't see
> you". And I believe them.  You will THINK that they see you just because
> you're making eye contact with them, but this is not the case. People can
> look at you, but their mind is somewhere else. My only point here is, don't
> rely on eye contact and assume that they see you because because you looked
> at each other.

I don't know where this advice to always make eye contact came from; I
think it's clearly wrong.

I think most people will interpret eye contact as a question--if someone
makes eye contact from me, I assume they're asking me what I intend to
do next.  Drivers at four-way-stops might make eye contact as part of
negotiating the right of way.  But I wouldn't expect them to make eye
contact when the right-of-way is clear.

If your intention is actually just to continue on your present path,
then eye contact isn't the way to indicate that intent.  Better to
continue straight ahead without hesitating and watch them out of the
corner of your eye.

--b.

  Problem?  Email:  CarFree-owners@...

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Tony Godshall | 4 Apr 2006 22:39

Re: Re: Framing the issue seems to be the issue (Was: Treat-cyclists-special blahblahblah)


I like this your thing generally but it needs a little
polishing.

- It should be named something else.  What the heck is a
  triad?  The name says nothing about the content except
  that there are three of something.  Three what?  Sections?
  Not really.  Seems like your intent here is to draft 
  motorist-cyclist coexistance pact, so I'd favor a name 
  more in keeping with that.

- Pedestrians are mentioned but just as an aside.  Should
  they be dropped or brought in as co-equal entities?  

- It could be revamped to blur the distinctions in a spirit
  of unity, e.g. "vehicles come in all shapes and sizes, 
  from bicycle to double-trailer-truck, and all riders or 
  drivers have the responsibility to interact responsively 
  and responsibly with those around them, whether big or
  small, whether they be powered by combustion, electricity,
  or muscle."

According to Tom Frost Jr.,
> Nualle advocates, in one breath, getting tough about "enforcement of 
> current law" (which is what would happen under my proposed 
> Bicyclists' Rights Triad http://www.newmilfordbike.com/Triad.htm ), 
> but then, in another breath, apparently whines about current law by 
> saying that it should "redress the imbalance of power". 
> 
> That's a contradictory framing. Therefore, I rest my case that "treat-
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Simon Baddeley | 4 Apr 2006 23:06
Picon
Picon

Re: Re: Framing the issue seems to be the issue (Was: Treat-cyclists-special blahbla

You¹re coming from a different place Marcy. I want cars and motorists to
disappear. It¹s like if there was an collision between a shark and a human
being some people would just say ³kill all sharks². Very unfair given the
shark is in its own territory and is increasingly a threatened species. In
fact I don¹t agree with the idea of destroying sharks, but I have the same
irrational and unthinking animosity towards drivers of cars as some have
towards sharks. Come to think of it. Is there any difference between
motorists and sharks? Sharks mostly hurt humans by mistake.

Simon (:))

From: whistling_lass <whistling_lass@...>
Reply-To: <CarFree@...>
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 19:48:22 -0000
To: <CarFree@...>
Subject: [CF] Re: Framing the issue seems to be the issue (Was:
Treat-cyclists-special blahbla

If anyone on this list is an older sibling, you might remember feeling
unfairly targeted.  You know how it is, the younger sibling starts
something: teasing, hitting, etc.  You fight back, and then YOU get
the blame for it.  "You're older, you should know better."  Your
younger sib sits in the background smirking.  He or she has gotten off
the hook.  You're supposed to be responsible for your behavior AND the
younger sibs, apparently.

Well, that's how I feel about some of the threads on this list.  If
two cars have an accident, which one is at fault?  You wouldn't know
unless you heard the details of the incident, or were a witness, etc.
 But if I said that an accident happened between a car and a bike,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Mark | 4 Apr 2006 23:48

Re: Re: Framing the issue seems to be the issue (Was: Treat-cyclists-special blahbla

wombatgrrl wrote:
> It's happened to me several times that I have had a close call with a car
> and had made eye contact with the driver. They always say "I didn't see
> you". And I believe them.  You will THINK that they see you just because
> you're making eye contact with them, but this is not the case. People can
> look at you, but their mind is somewhere else. My only point here is, don't
> rely on eye contact and assume that they see you because because you looked
> at each other.

I find that my eye to their license plate contact is much
more effective.  Sometimes I mouth the letters.

Just tonight I was pushing my 22 month-old home in her
stroller and some woman tried to cut us off in the crosswalk
against the light.  As I pulled Noie out of harms way my
gaze was firmly on the tag of that car, and though I'm not
going to repeat it here I can still remember it.

I've found that drivers find it sort of humbling if you look
at their tag and appear to be memorizing it.

-mark

--

-- 
--
=================================================================
-- mark at geekhive dot net --

  Problem?  Email:  CarFree-owners@...
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |

Gmane