4 ms·

Roads are dangerous by their nature and bicycles are unpredictable and unprotected modes of transport to use. It is entirely understandable that there will be a

Roads are dangerous by their nature and bicycles are unpredictable and unprotected modes of transport to use. It is entirely understandable that there will be a large amount of lethal accidents involving cyclists, particularly on roads which aren't designed to accommodate them safely. Choosing to cycle subsequently bears significant risk and those who choose to do it surely carry a large proportion of the responsibility if they get injured, not mention the risks they pose to drivers by causing traffic to change speed and be forced to overtake. I understand cycling where it is safe to but am not convinced cycling on major roads is worth it.

nraynaud 12y ago
their speed makes them largely predictable, they basically don't move as seen from a car, just keep a huge bubble around them, and adapt your speed to what you can anticipate. Moreover remember that cyclists only pose a risk to pedestrians, the risky person is the one with the highest kinetic energy, don't get your moral compass confused, driving a car is like going in the street with a rifle, you could kill anyone at any moment. Going on bike is like going with a knife, to kill someone you'll need some effort.
MereInterest 12y ago
Roads by themselves are just patches of asphalt, not dangerous at all. Roads are made dangerous by the things that travel on them. Choosing to drive subsequently bears significant responsibility in causing that danger, and those who choose to do it surely carry a large proportion of the responsibility if they injure another, not to mention the risks they pose to other drivers. I understand driving in a safe manner, but I am not convinced that driving on major roads is worth it. Quit blaming the victims.
- AliAdams 12y ago
  If someone tightrope-walked over Niagara and fell in I would certainly blame the victim. Those patches of asphalt wouldn't be there if they didn't provide an economic benefit. If we made a law tomorrow that all vehicles couldn't exceed 20mph they would be safer but lose their effectiveness and decrease their benefit. Once that cost benefit balance goes too far you have no patches of asphalt.
  - MereInterest 12y ago
    Some things, like walking across Niagara falls, are inherently dangerous. Other things, like biking, are inherently safe, but are made dangerous by the actions of others.
AliAdams 12y ago
Disagreement with a reasonable comment shouldn't be a valid reason for a downvote.
Silhouette 12y ago
Let's try that argument in another context: Parks at night are dangerous by their nature and short skirts are unpredictable and unprotected forms of clothing to wear. It is entirely understandable that there will be a large amount of sexual assaults involving attractive young women wearing short skirts, particularly in parks which aren't designed to let them walk across safely. Choosing to wear a short skirt subsequently bears significant risk and those who choose to do it surely carry a large proportion of the responsibility if they get raped, not to mention the risks they pose to rapists by causing them to enter a dark park where they might get mugged themselves. I understand wearing short skirts where it is safe to but am not convinced wearing them when going out for the night is worth it. Did anyone here not think that argument was absurd? When did blaming the victim become an ethically acceptable basis for setting public policy?
- AliAdams 12y ago
  The reason that rape is not a comparable example is that the person committing the crime is doing so actively. Why do you think it is unreasonable of me to say that someone who puts themselves in a risky position is by definition partly to blame?
  - DanBC 12y ago
    Cyclists are not putting themselves in a risky situation until drivers chose to drive dangerously.
    - AliAdams 12y ago
      There are at least two holes in your reasoning. 1) Dangerous driving is not always an active choice 2) Even if (1) was true, it is incorrect to assert that the entirety of the danger to cyclists on the road is dangerous drivers It may be that you were aware that this was the case and your phrasing was simply an attempt (consciously or unconsciously) at being emotive, but it made your statement incorrect to be so definitive.
  - AliAdams 12y ago
    Humans driving at the legal speed limit are dangerous by their nature. We arent perfect and dont see everything - the likelihood of an accident is simply a matter of probability. I don't think it is any stretch of reasoning to say that choosing to be close to and often in the path of people driving at legal speed in itself carries risk, indiscriminate of how good and conscientious the driver is.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
defen 12y ago
Your entire argument is framed in the context of driving being a right and not a privilege. Cars do not own the road. Bicycles are vehicles and you have to treat them as such - it's the law. I'm not sure where you live but at least in the US many people take driving for granted since it's so easy to get a license, and so difficult to lose it (barring exceptionally negligent or irresponsible behavior). But there are rules of the road, and you do have to follow them if you want to partake in the benefits of driving.
- AliAdams 12y ago
  Don't put words into my mouth. I do not claim that driving is a right, but I do think it is reasonable to say that driving is significantly more important to a country's economic activity, signalled by the amount of investment in road infrastructure in, I would venture, every developed country. I don't think it is a leap to say that roads are built mainly for motor vehicles and rarely solely for bikes and by extension a bike has less right to a road than a car does.
  - defen 12y ago
    > I don't think it is a leap to say that roads are built mainly for motor vehicles and rarely solely for bikes and by extension a bike has less right to a road than a car does. That's my whole point...there is no legal basis for your claim, if we're talking about surface streets in a city and not highways.

nraynaud 12y ago

their speed makes them largely predictable, they basically don't move as seen from a car, just keep a huge bubble around them, and adapt your speed to what you can anticipate. Moreover remember that cyclists only pose a risk to pedestrians, the risky person is the one with the highest kinetic energy, don't get your moral compass confused, driving a car is like going in the street with a rifle, you could kill anyone at any moment. Going on bike is like going with a knife, to kill someone you'll need some effort.

MereInterest 12y ago

Roads by themselves are just patches of asphalt, not dangerous at all. Roads are made dangerous by the things that travel on them. Choosing to drive subsequently bears significant responsibility in causing that danger, and those who choose to do it surely carry a large proportion of the responsibility if they injure another, not to mention the risks they pose to other drivers. I understand driving in a safe manner, but I am not convinced that driving on major roads is worth it. Quit blaming the victims.

AliAdams 12y ago
If someone tightrope-walked over Niagara and fell in I would certainly blame the victim. Those patches of asphalt wouldn't be there if they didn't provide an economic benefit. If we made a law tomorrow that all vehicles couldn't exceed 20mph they would be safer but lose their effectiveness and decrease their benefit. Once that cost benefit balance goes too far you have no patches of asphalt.
- MereInterest 12y ago
  Some things, like walking across Niagara falls, are inherently dangerous. Other things, like biking, are inherently safe, but are made dangerous by the actions of others.

AliAdams 12y ago

Disagreement with a reasonable comment shouldn't be a valid reason for a downvote.

Silhouette 12y ago

Let's try that argument in another context: Parks at night are dangerous by their nature and short skirts are unpredictable and unprotected forms of clothing to wear. It is entirely understandable that there will be a large amount of sexual assaults involving attractive young women wearing short skirts, particularly in parks which aren't designed to let them walk across safely. Choosing to wear a short skirt subsequently bears significant risk and those who choose to do it surely carry a large proportion of the responsibility if they get raped, not to mention the risks they pose to rapists by causing them to enter a dark park where they might get mugged themselves. I understand wearing short skirts where it is safe to but am not convinced wearing them when going out for the night is worth it. Did anyone here not think that argument was absurd? When did blaming the victim become an ethically acceptable basis for setting public policy?

AliAdams 12y ago
The reason that rape is not a comparable example is that the person committing the crime is doing so actively. Why do you think it is unreasonable of me to say that someone who puts themselves in a risky position is by definition partly to blame?
- DanBC 12y ago
  Cyclists are not putting themselves in a risky situation until drivers chose to drive dangerously.
  - AliAdams 12y ago
    There are at least two holes in your reasoning. 1) Dangerous driving is not always an active choice 2) Even if (1) was true, it is incorrect to assert that the entirety of the danger to cyclists on the road is dangerous drivers It may be that you were aware that this was the case and your phrasing was simply an attempt (consciously or unconsciously) at being emotive, but it made your statement incorrect to be so definitive.
- AliAdams 12y ago
  Humans driving at the legal speed limit are dangerous by their nature. We arent perfect and dont see everything - the likelihood of an accident is simply a matter of probability. I don't think it is any stretch of reasoning to say that choosing to be close to and often in the path of people driving at legal speed in itself carries risk, indiscriminate of how good and conscientious the driver is.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

defen 12y ago

Your entire argument is framed in the context of driving being a right and not a privilege. Cars do not own the road. Bicycles are vehicles and you have to treat them as such - it's the law. I'm not sure where you live but at least in the US many people take driving for granted since it's so easy to get a license, and so difficult to lose it (barring exceptionally negligent or irresponsible behavior). But there are rules of the road, and you do have to follow them if you want to partake in the benefits of driving.

AliAdams 12y ago
Don't put words into my mouth. I do not claim that driving is a right, but I do think it is reasonable to say that driving is significantly more important to a country's economic activity, signalled by the amount of investment in road infrastructure in, I would venture, every developed country. I don't think it is a leap to say that roads are built mainly for motor vehicles and rarely solely for bikes and by extension a bike has less right to a road than a car does.
- defen 12y ago
  > I don't think it is a leap to say that roads are built mainly for motor vehicles and rarely solely for bikes and by extension a bike has less right to a road than a car does. That's my whole point...there is no legal basis for your claim, if we're talking about surface streets in a city and not highways.