4 ms·

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

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

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.