3 ms·

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

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.
- Silhouette 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. If you can't drive safely at a given speed, slow down. It's really as simple as that. (Yes, of course there are exceptions. If you're driving an emergency response vehicle then the likely damage caused by arriving later may be genuinely greater than the likely damage caused by going faster. But obviously we're not talking about that sort of situation here and for normal driving it really is that simple.)
Silhouette 12y ago
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? I don't accept your premise that cycling around town on public roads is necessarily a risky position. I live in Cambridge, UK, a city known for having a lot more cyclists than most places in this country, and also known for its historical (read: narrow and windy) street plan. It's about as cycle-hostile an environment as you can get and it's difficult to make big changes to improve things anywhere near the city centre. And yet in a couple of decades of living here, moving around as both a cyclist and a driver, I have never been concerned about a car-cycle accident from either side. This doesn't require some level of super-human reaction time and supreme driving skill in the car, nor a force shield around my bike. It just requires following the basic legal rules of the road and allowing for the fact that not all road users are the same. In particular, I avoid potential accidents with cyclists all the time when driving, often simply because I allow plenty of space around them so when something unexpected happens there's still room for everyone when the cyclist suddenly changes speed or direction. You are never, contrary to your original post, forced to overtake a cyclist. In fact, if it would be dangerous to do so, you are legally required not to overtake, as with passing any other vehicle. If a cyclist breaks the rules themselves and then gets hurt, sure, assign them some or all of the responsibility. I don't care you are less protected than a car, he had the green light and you knowingly or carelessly ran a red. I do not support calls for car drivers to be legally responsible for any car-cyclist accident by default, because I see cyclists do insane stuff like this every day. But if a cyclist is simply using the road in an otherwise considerate way, there really isn't any need for cars to go racing past them at high relative speeds and with little clearance (and no, a bit of ill-judged paint that some authority slapped on the road does not excuse a lack of basic driving skills). And if drivers don't do that, and cyclists follow the rules too, then your original claim that "It is entirely understandable that there will be a large amount of lethal accidents involving cyclists" just doesn't stand up in my experience. Accidents do happen, and sadly some degree of injury and even death is almost inevitable unless we close down efficient transportation systems altogether; on this much, we agree. But to cause a fatal car-cycle crash usually requires not only bad luck but also a failure on the part of either or both of the driver and the cyclist to follow the rules, and at that point it's not just an accident any more.
- 12y ago

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.

Silhouette 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. If you can't drive safely at a given speed, slow down. It's really as simple as that. (Yes, of course there are exceptions. If you're driving an emergency response vehicle then the likely damage caused by arriving later may be genuinely greater than the likely damage caused by going faster. But obviously we're not talking about that sort of situation here and for normal driving it really is that simple.)

Silhouette 12y ago

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? I don't accept your premise that cycling around town on public roads is necessarily a risky position. I live in Cambridge, UK, a city known for having a lot more cyclists than most places in this country, and also known for its historical (read: narrow and windy) street plan. It's about as cycle-hostile an environment as you can get and it's difficult to make big changes to improve things anywhere near the city centre. And yet in a couple of decades of living here, moving around as both a cyclist and a driver, I have never been concerned about a car-cycle accident from either side. This doesn't require some level of super-human reaction time and supreme driving skill in the car, nor a force shield around my bike. It just requires following the basic legal rules of the road and allowing for the fact that not all road users are the same. In particular, I avoid potential accidents with cyclists all the time when driving, often simply because I allow plenty of space around them so when something unexpected happens there's still room for everyone when the cyclist suddenly changes speed or direction. You are never, contrary to your original post, forced to overtake a cyclist. In fact, if it would be dangerous to do so, you are legally required not to overtake, as with passing any other vehicle. If a cyclist breaks the rules themselves and then gets hurt, sure, assign them some or all of the responsibility. I don't care you are less protected than a car, he had the green light and you knowingly or carelessly ran a red. I do not support calls for car drivers to be legally responsible for any car-cyclist accident by default, because I see cyclists do insane stuff like this every day. But if a cyclist is simply using the road in an otherwise considerate way, there really isn't any need for cars to go racing past them at high relative speeds and with little clearance (and no, a bit of ill-judged paint that some authority slapped on the road does not excuse a lack of basic driving skills). And if drivers don't do that, and cyclists follow the rules too, then your original claim that "It is entirely understandable that there will be a large amount of lethal accidents involving cyclists" just doesn't stand up in my experience. Accidents do happen, and sadly some degree of injury and even death is almost inevitable unless we close down efficient transportation systems altogether; on this much, we agree. But to cause a fatal car-cycle crash usually requires not only bad luck but also a failure on the part of either or both of the driver and the cyclist to follow the rules, and at that point it's not just an accident any more.

12y ago