4 ms·

Actually, as a cyclist, I would tend agree with the person you're replying to. A major factor is that (the vast majority of) people can't hop on a pushbike and

Actually, as a cyclist, I would tend agree with the person you're replying to. A major factor is that (the vast majority of) people can't hop on a pushbike and just go 20+ mph. Non-athletes typically ride about 12 mph when they first hop on. By the time they develop the muscles and cardio to ride a sustained 20 mph, they also develop the bike-handling skills to reasonably ride that fast, as well as an awareness of when it is appropriate to ride that fast. In contrast, anyone who hasn't ridden a bike since childhood can hop on an eBike and be going 20 mph seconds later. They often don't know how to handle a bike around other people. > If I were required to bike on the road instead I simply wouldn't do it, it's far too dangerous. So we'd probably end up having to get a car and if, heaven forbid, I were to get in any kind of an accident a pedestrian would be considerably worse off. A collision, not an accident. And you make it sound like something that happened to you as the driver of the car.

afavour 3y ago
> By the time they develop the muscles and cardio to ride a sustained 20 mph, they also develop the bike-handling skills to reasonably ride that fast, as well as an awareness of when it is appropriate to ride that fast. honestly... lol. I'm lucky enough to live near a large park often populated by the lycra-clad performance bikers and while I certainly hope they have awareness of when it's appropriate to ride fast they don't demonstrate it. They blow through pedestrian crossings, buzz past slower riders in choke points all while blowing a whistle or screaming "ON YOUR RIGHT" as if it makes everything okay. There's a strong culture of entitlement at work. > A major factor is that (the vast majority of) people can't hop on a pushbike and just go 20+ mph. They can, though, if they're going downhill. Largely they don't because they don't feel comfortable doing so and they apply brakes. The same applies to e-bikes. As someone who rides one all the time I certainly don't jump on it and immediately feel invulnerable or something. It took me a long time to get comfortable riding at 20mph and even now it's very rare that I do. > A collision, not an accident. And you make it sound like something that happened to you as the driver of the car. OK, sure. I don't even own a car, I don't see a lot of value in debating the semantics of a theoretical event I don't even own the means to create.
- throw0101a 3y ago
  > OK, sure. I don't even own a car, I don't see a lot of value in debating the semantics of a theoretical event I don't even own the means to create. It's not semantics: it frames the situation in a certain way. > According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, an accident is "an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance" and a crash is "a breaking to pieces by or as if by collision." These two words have different definitions and implications and are not very similar, so why would these words be used interchangeably? > When we call something an "accident" it implies that no one is at fault and that no one, including the driver, bears responsibility for the outcome. The term "crash," on the other hand, is more specific in terms of the action's outcome without the unpreventable implication. * https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/travel/safety/road-users/crash-not-accident https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/travel/safety/road-users/crash... > We don’t say “plane accident.” We shouldn’t say “car accident” either. * https://www.vox.com/2015/7/20/8995151/crash-not-accident https://www.vox.com/2015/7/20/8995151/crash-not-accident > Before the labor movement, factory owners would say "it was an accident" when American workers were injured in unsafe conditions. > Before the movement to combat drunk driving, intoxicated drivers would say "it was an accident" when they crashed their cars. > Planes don’t have accidents. They crash. Cranes don’t have accidents. They collapse. And as a society, we expect answers and solutions. > Traffic crashes are fixable problems, caused by dangerous streets and unsafe drivers. They are not accidents. Let’s stop using the word "accident" today. * https://crashnotaccident.com https://crashnotaccident.com

afavour 3y ago

> By the time they develop the muscles and cardio to ride a sustained 20 mph, they also develop the bike-handling skills to reasonably ride that fast, as well as an awareness of when it is appropriate to ride that fast. honestly... lol. I'm lucky enough to live near a large park often populated by the lycra-clad performance bikers and while I certainly hope they have awareness of when it's appropriate to ride fast they don't demonstrate it. They blow through pedestrian crossings, buzz past slower riders in choke points all while blowing a whistle or screaming "ON YOUR RIGHT" as if it makes everything okay. There's a strong culture of entitlement at work. > A major factor is that (the vast majority of) people can't hop on a pushbike and just go 20+ mph. They can, though, if they're going downhill. Largely they don't because they don't feel comfortable doing so and they apply brakes. The same applies to e-bikes. As someone who rides one all the time I certainly don't jump on it and immediately feel invulnerable or something. It took me a long time to get comfortable riding at 20mph and even now it's very rare that I do. > A collision, not an accident. And you make it sound like something that happened to you as the driver of the car. OK, sure. I don't even own a car, I don't see a lot of value in debating the semantics of a theoretical event I don't even own the means to create.

throw0101a 3y ago
> OK, sure. I don't even own a car, I don't see a lot of value in debating the semantics of a theoretical event I don't even own the means to create. It's not semantics: it frames the situation in a certain way. > According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, an accident is "an unfortunate event resulting especially from carelessness or ignorance" and a crash is "a breaking to pieces by or as if by collision." These two words have different definitions and implications and are not very similar, so why would these words be used interchangeably? > When we call something an "accident" it implies that no one is at fault and that no one, including the driver, bears responsibility for the outcome. The term "crash," on the other hand, is more specific in terms of the action's outcome without the unpreventable implication. * https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/travel/safety/road-users/crash-not-accident https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/travel/safety/road-users/crash... > We don’t say “plane accident.” We shouldn’t say “car accident” either. * https://www.vox.com/2015/7/20/8995151/crash-not-accident https://www.vox.com/2015/7/20/8995151/crash-not-accident > Before the labor movement, factory owners would say "it was an accident" when American workers were injured in unsafe conditions. > Before the movement to combat drunk driving, intoxicated drivers would say "it was an accident" when they crashed their cars. > Planes don’t have accidents. They crash. Cranes don’t have accidents. They collapse. And as a society, we expect answers and solutions. > Traffic crashes are fixable problems, caused by dangerous streets and unsafe drivers. They are not accidents. Let’s stop using the word "accident" today. * https://crashnotaccident.com https://crashnotaccident.com