3 ms·

> If it was a stalled car that you nearly ran into, whose fault would it be? I see the point, but that's a different situation. A stalled vehicle is an accide

> If it was a stalled car that you nearly ran into, whose fault would it be? I see the point, but that's a different situation. A stalled vehicle is an accident. A group of cyclists going slowly uphill is a deliberate choice, on their part. I have a hard time laying blame completely on one party when both parties have made choices that increase the danger of a situation. I don't know exactly what happened in the previous comment's story (conditions on the 101 may be different in other areas), but large groups of bicycles in my area tend to spill out of the marked bike lanes and into motor vehicle lanes, but bicycles aren't common enough that their presence is always expected. Anytime something less-than-expected happens, there's a higher risk of someone getting hurt.

vvanders 9y ago
Thank you, this is the point that I was getting at. The stretch of road in question has no bike lane and half of foot of pavement to the right of the lane at most. The right solution is to put in a dedicated bike lane, in absence of that you're putting everyone else on the road in danger by choosing bike with a large delta of speed.
the_gastropod 9y ago
Again, this is just victim blaming. The cyclists are not putting anyone at danger. People operating x,000 lb machines at speeds capable of killing others while being unable to see the part of road they could effectively stop at are putting people at danger. This is not an acceptable defense, whether it's a cyclist, a stalled car, traffic, a deer, or any other "obstruction" sharing the road.
- vvanders 9y ago
  You're missing the distinction between legal and safe. Is it legal to ride your bike on 101? Totally. In the same way that it's legal to go bombing down trails in a mountain bike. Now is either of those things safe? I would argue not. The difference is that if you wipe out on the trail you just injure yourself, probably with some scrapes and the occasional broken bones. Where I draw the line is when your actions put me or my family at risk. The chances of death or serious injury is much higher in a bike vs car(either for the cyclist, in another car crossing the double-yellow to "dodge" the cyclist or pile-up for someone following too close).
  - the_gastropod 9y ago
    No, I understand completely. In none of these cases is the cyclist the one actively harming anyone. The danger lies entirely in the high-mass machines traveling at high speeds. If the drivers of these machines are unable to "dodge" or "stop" appropriately, it is their fault if someone is hurt. I understand the distinction that it is a risk to ride a bike on such a road. But I find placing blame on a cyclist for accepting this risk to their safety from reckless motorists absurd.
    - khedoros1 9y ago
      I'd say that they accepted the risk, and that they can't accept the risk without accepting a share of the blame. > But I find placing blame on a cyclist for accepting this risk to their safety from reckless motorists absurd. I find knowingly riding a bicycle in unsafe conditions absurd. It's why my bike has sat in my garage for 5 years; I can't ride on the raised sidewalks, and I think it's suicidally stupid to ride in the bike lanes that are separated from motor vehicle traffic by a few feet and a white line. Frankly, I don't care who's to blame, if I wind up dead. It's not a risk that I'm willing to accept.
    - vvanders 9y ago
      > If the drivers of these machines are unable to "dodge" or "stop" appropriately, it is their fault if someone is hurt. Yes, and I don't give two shakes about who's right or who's at fault of the result is sending another car across the double yellow and killing me or my family. Listen, I get that it feels great to feel like you have the moral authority to tell us how cyclist aren't actively harming anyone but they are creating situations(large deltas in speed, cars having to pass) where there is a higher chance of a serious collision. Unless you're telling me that there's no statistical difference of collisions when 5mph bicycles are on 55mph highways? FWIW they're building a separate bike path along large sections of 101 by Port Angeles which is the right way to address this, and I fully support that. The idea that having a large delta in speed on a highway doesn't contribute to accidents however is absurd.
- khedoros1 9y ago
  If someone knowingly puts themselves into an unsafe position, they made a mistake. Period. If you know that cars are whipping around corners at unsafe speeds, and you choose to ride (or walk) there anyhow, then I don't have much pity if something bad happens. Are they a victim? Yes. Should some blame be put on them for putting themselves in that situation? Absolutely. Do stupid things, win stupid prizes. Simultaneously, the driver knows that they're controlling a heavy machine, and that they might need to stop suddenly for various reasons. They have a responsibility to operate it safely, according to reasonable expectations of the environment that they're driving in. "I was going too fast to stop in time" isn't defensible.

vvanders 9y ago

Thank you, this is the point that I was getting at. The stretch of road in question has no bike lane and half of foot of pavement to the right of the lane at most. The right solution is to put in a dedicated bike lane, in absence of that you're putting everyone else on the road in danger by choosing bike with a large delta of speed.

the_gastropod 9y ago

Again, this is just victim blaming. The cyclists are not putting anyone at danger. People operating x,000 lb machines at speeds capable of killing others while being unable to see the part of road they could effectively stop at are putting people at danger. This is not an acceptable defense, whether it's a cyclist, a stalled car, traffic, a deer, or any other "obstruction" sharing the road.

vvanders 9y ago
You're missing the distinction between legal and safe. Is it legal to ride your bike on 101? Totally. In the same way that it's legal to go bombing down trails in a mountain bike. Now is either of those things safe? I would argue not. The difference is that if you wipe out on the trail you just injure yourself, probably with some scrapes and the occasional broken bones. Where I draw the line is when your actions put me or my family at risk. The chances of death or serious injury is much higher in a bike vs car(either for the cyclist, in another car crossing the double-yellow to "dodge" the cyclist or pile-up for someone following too close).
- the_gastropod 9y ago
  No, I understand completely. In none of these cases is the cyclist the one actively harming anyone. The danger lies entirely in the high-mass machines traveling at high speeds. If the drivers of these machines are unable to "dodge" or "stop" appropriately, it is their fault if someone is hurt. I understand the distinction that it is a risk to ride a bike on such a road. But I find placing blame on a cyclist for accepting this risk to their safety from reckless motorists absurd.
  - khedoros1 9y ago
    I'd say that they accepted the risk, and that they can't accept the risk without accepting a share of the blame. > But I find placing blame on a cyclist for accepting this risk to their safety from reckless motorists absurd. I find knowingly riding a bicycle in unsafe conditions absurd. It's why my bike has sat in my garage for 5 years; I can't ride on the raised sidewalks, and I think it's suicidally stupid to ride in the bike lanes that are separated from motor vehicle traffic by a few feet and a white line. Frankly, I don't care who's to blame, if I wind up dead. It's not a risk that I'm willing to accept.
  - vvanders 9y ago
    > If the drivers of these machines are unable to "dodge" or "stop" appropriately, it is their fault if someone is hurt. Yes, and I don't give two shakes about who's right or who's at fault of the result is sending another car across the double yellow and killing me or my family. Listen, I get that it feels great to feel like you have the moral authority to tell us how cyclist aren't actively harming anyone but they are creating situations(large deltas in speed, cars having to pass) where there is a higher chance of a serious collision. Unless you're telling me that there's no statistical difference of collisions when 5mph bicycles are on 55mph highways? FWIW they're building a separate bike path along large sections of 101 by Port Angeles which is the right way to address this, and I fully support that. The idea that having a large delta in speed on a highway doesn't contribute to accidents however is absurd.
khedoros1 9y ago
If someone knowingly puts themselves into an unsafe position, they made a mistake. Period. If you know that cars are whipping around corners at unsafe speeds, and you choose to ride (or walk) there anyhow, then I don't have much pity if something bad happens. Are they a victim? Yes. Should some blame be put on them for putting themselves in that situation? Absolutely. Do stupid things, win stupid prizes. Simultaneously, the driver knows that they're controlling a heavy machine, and that they might need to stop suddenly for various reasons. They have a responsibility to operate it safely, according to reasonable expectations of the environment that they're driving in. "I was going too fast to stop in time" isn't defensible.