3 ms·

> Is an SUV running a stop sign twice as bad as a compact car running a stop sign? That's such a willfully stupid response. Compare these: Bike:Compact:SUV to

> Is an SUV running a stop sign twice as bad as a compact car running a stop sign? That's such a willfully stupid response. Compare these: Bike:Compact:SUV to pelletgun:handgun:rifle Morever, did you read the first thing that I said? "Before I get all the hate I have to say of course cyclists should obey the laws." Thank you for adding NOTHING to the conversation except for demonstrating the whacked out stupidity that is the core problem here. Your kind argues that we have to obey the same laws as motorists while forcing us into the gutter. "Separate but equal?"

baddox 10y ago
> Compare these: Bike:Compact:SUV to pelletgun:handgun:rifle Like I said, a bicycle is very capable of severely injuring or killing a pedestrian, which is why I group it together with automobiles. I'm not familiar with how powerful pellet guns are, so I don't know how that analogy applies. I suspect they are at least capable of causing severe eye injury, and I would encourage the exact same precautionary behavior with pellet guns as with handguns and rifles (trigger discipline, don't point at people, etc.). I guess I'm a little confused by what point you're trying to make. If your preface was intended to invalidate everything you wrote after it, then it's my mistake for trying to do the same.
- orbitingpluto 10y ago
  You managed to get my point. A pellet could injure someone and damage an eye. What if a bullet hit the same spot? Those are very different outcomes. Conceivably a pellet could kill someone if was a David vs Goliath one in a million shot. Reckless endangerment takes into account the threat level created by the offender. Why not traffic laws? The threat level sort of tops out when you're a squishy human getting hit by a vehicle. Compact vs SUV don't matter much unless you want to get all Rorschach about the splatter pattern. Dead is dead.
baddox 10y ago
Also, it appears that you group compact cars and SUVs together. So do I, and for the same reason, I also put bicycles into the same group. We both agree that vehicles with very different masses can be grouped together, but we apparently disagree about where to draw the line. I'm not sure why, but I suspect it could be based on our experiences. I haven't biked or driven routinely for many years, and never on streets with enough traffic to encounter many incidents or significant risks. I certainly don't agree with or even understand your comment about being forced into the gutter, but it sounds like a misrepresentation of my views.
- mercer 10y ago
  I agree with you that bikes can be dangerous. I also agree that bikes should obey traffic rules. That said, I've spent much of my life in cities crowded with bikes and pedestrians and the difference between a bike and a car, pretty much any kind of car, is huge. There's the weight difference, but also the completely different posture, ability to see around you, ability to stop or even just drop your bike and jump off. Bikes are much easier to steer, as well as smaller in 'surface area' that can hit another person. I've gone on daily commutes where I'd ride at relatively high speeds right through the tourist-infested center of Amsterdam, and while I'd not do that anymore (wiser and older), accidents were incredibly rare, despite the fact that most tourists don't understand the concept of a 'bike lane'. In my opinion the average city biker is much more like a pedestrian than like a car driver. Obviously that doesn't mean bikers shouldn't respect the road, but putting bikers in the same category as drivers seems a bit silly to me. (that said, high-speed cyclists are quite a bit more dangerous. but around here they usually avoid heavy-traffic areas. could be different for the US maybe)
  - baddox 10y ago
    > In my opinion the average city biker is much more like a pedestrian than like a car driver. In my opinion the key attribute isn't the size, weight, or speed, but rather simply the path being used. To me, the key distinction of pedestrians is that they have their own "road," with very different rules and specific rules to handle encounters with the other type of road. Bicycles, on the other hand, use the same road as automobiles (and usually the same lanes), with only slightly different rules than automobiles.

baddox 10y ago

> Compare these: Bike:Compact:SUV to pelletgun:handgun:rifle Like I said, a bicycle is very capable of severely injuring or killing a pedestrian, which is why I group it together with automobiles. I'm not familiar with how powerful pellet guns are, so I don't know how that analogy applies. I suspect they are at least capable of causing severe eye injury, and I would encourage the exact same precautionary behavior with pellet guns as with handguns and rifles (trigger discipline, don't point at people, etc.). I guess I'm a little confused by what point you're trying to make. If your preface was intended to invalidate everything you wrote after it, then it's my mistake for trying to do the same.

orbitingpluto 10y ago
You managed to get my point. A pellet could injure someone and damage an eye. What if a bullet hit the same spot? Those are very different outcomes. Conceivably a pellet could kill someone if was a David vs Goliath one in a million shot. Reckless endangerment takes into account the threat level created by the offender. Why not traffic laws? The threat level sort of tops out when you're a squishy human getting hit by a vehicle. Compact vs SUV don't matter much unless you want to get all Rorschach about the splatter pattern. Dead is dead.

baddox 10y ago

Also, it appears that you group compact cars and SUVs together. So do I, and for the same reason, I also put bicycles into the same group. We both agree that vehicles with very different masses can be grouped together, but we apparently disagree about where to draw the line. I'm not sure why, but I suspect it could be based on our experiences. I haven't biked or driven routinely for many years, and never on streets with enough traffic to encounter many incidents or significant risks. I certainly don't agree with or even understand your comment about being forced into the gutter, but it sounds like a misrepresentation of my views.

mercer 10y ago
I agree with you that bikes can be dangerous. I also agree that bikes should obey traffic rules. That said, I've spent much of my life in cities crowded with bikes and pedestrians and the difference between a bike and a car, pretty much any kind of car, is huge. There's the weight difference, but also the completely different posture, ability to see around you, ability to stop or even just drop your bike and jump off. Bikes are much easier to steer, as well as smaller in 'surface area' that can hit another person. I've gone on daily commutes where I'd ride at relatively high speeds right through the tourist-infested center of Amsterdam, and while I'd not do that anymore (wiser and older), accidents were incredibly rare, despite the fact that most tourists don't understand the concept of a 'bike lane'. In my opinion the average city biker is much more like a pedestrian than like a car driver. Obviously that doesn't mean bikers shouldn't respect the road, but putting bikers in the same category as drivers seems a bit silly to me. (that said, high-speed cyclists are quite a bit more dangerous. but around here they usually avoid heavy-traffic areas. could be different for the US maybe)
- baddox 10y ago
  > In my opinion the average city biker is much more like a pedestrian than like a car driver. In my opinion the key attribute isn't the size, weight, or speed, but rather simply the path being used. To me, the key distinction of pedestrians is that they have their own "road," with very different rules and specific rules to handle encounters with the other type of road. Bicycles, on the other hand, use the same road as automobiles (and usually the same lanes), with only slightly different rules than automobiles.