Don’t sweat it scr4, catsix is going for the cognitive dissonance award of the week. :rolleyes:
Isn’t this the same principle behind not walking around flashing gobs of cash and diamonds the size of lima beans in a bad neighborhood?
Because honestly, that behavior is 100% legal, and yet still 100% stupid. Does it absolve anyone who robs the person who is so careless? No, it doesn’t. Mugging someone is always a crime.
Car accidents are not always a crime, nor are they always 100% the fault of one of the parties. My state, for example, assigns percentages of fault to each of the involved parties. Criminal charges don’t appear in every accident. I would hazard a guess that in most car accidents, there are no criminal charges.
So, are you still going to say you have no responsibility for your own safety?
Strawman. I did not say “by definition”. Why are you putting words in my mouth?
It’s legal for the KKK to publish racist propaganda. However, they are assholes for doing so.
Bicyclists are not assholes for legally using a road. Some bicyclists are assholes, but the mere situation of riding less than 50 mph does not make anyone an asshole.
Preposterous.
A. I made no argument as to the relative numbers of recreational and non-recreational riders.
B. Do you stop and survey all bicyclists as to where they are going? If you didn’t, then your conclusion is unwarranted.
C. To claim that a trip is not important because it’s for “recreation” is just silly. Would you forego a trip in your car just because it was for recreation?
Thanks. It was meant to be.
Forgot one more thing: I did not argue that bicyclists ‘need to get where they’re going’; I argued that IF they need to get where they’re going, and only one road is available, they need to use that road.
Nice of you to convert my conditional to an absolute and then attack the absolute. :rolleyes:
It’s very poor form to omit words from a quote without indicating you have done so, especially crucial words like “if”.
However, if a 5mph cyclist on the road is hit by a 50mph driver, that is 100% the fault of the driver. You said yourself that the cyclist has the right to be on the road, and the only danger is from drivers who are inattentive and/or driving too fast for road conditions.
I think it would be wise for me to choose the safest of the routes that get me to where I want to go. I’ve said that before. As a legal user of the road, I do not have any responsibilities beyond that.
I didn’t put words in your mouth. You are arguing that because their behavior is legal, it is therefore also not ‘being an asshole.’
You conveniently provide me an example of that argument two sentences later:
It might be legal for them to travel more than 30 mph less than everyone else on the road, but it’s still an asshole thing to do. It doesn’t matter what kind of vehicle you’re in or on, impeding traffic is being an asshole.
I have when said trip would be too risky.
There are many alternatives to riding a bicycle twelve miles over a dangerous stretch of road. There has to be a reason that I’ve seen bicycles less than twenty or thirty times in a thirteen year period on that road. Because I have, and ride for recreation, a bicycle myself, I have surmised that it’s because it’s too dangerous. It is my opinion that riding a bicycle there is a stupid thing to do. It is my opnion that traveling significantly (30 or 40 mph) less than the flow of traffic is assholish and dangerous.
You have consistently said that it is neither assholish nor dangerous, purely because it is legal. Since when does being legal make something not assholish or dangerous?
Can you prove that with actual cites, or is it just your biased opinion against cars?
And I have every right to consider you a fucking idiot if you do something that recklessly disregards your safety because hey, it’s legal.
And get the proper lights, dammit!
Honey, you are obviously logic-impaired, so I’ll try one more time to explain this to you.
I made no such argument.
Please pay attention to this:
A= ‘legal’
B= ‘asshole’
My argument is: “A does not imply B”
Your strawman argument, which you have attributed to me, but which I never made, is “A implies not B”
Those are not equivalent arguments.
Example:
“Having a moustache does not mean I’m gay” is a different argument than:
“Having a moustache means I’m not gay”
End of lesson.
I disagree, as do most of the other participants in this thread.
OK, how can someone be responsible for an accident if he/she is using the road legally, and hit from behind by an inattentive driver going too fast for that road?
I don’t agree with that opinion but yes, you have the right to hold it. This is America, you can believe anything you want. You can believe child rape is acceptable, as long as you don’t act out your belief.
But that isn’t what you said, is it? You actually said:
That’s very different to the qualified statement that the cyclist is (a) using the road legally; (b) hit from behind; (c) by an inattentive driver who is (d) going too fast for that road.
A 5 mph cyclist can pull out directly into the path of a 50 mph driver. Driver hitting said cyclist would not be driver’s fault. So your original 100% fault is just simply not true. Now you are trying to change it.
Well of course. That is a legal requirement.
I think I’ve spent over $1000 on bike lights over the past year. That includes hub dynamo systems for 2 bikes, a 5-W LED headlight with Li-Ion batteries for another bike, and a pair of taillights for each bike.
I thought catsix was referring specifically to the rural road she described earlier. If that was not the intention, then my apologies for the mistake.
I agree, if a 5mph bike came out of the sidewalk and got hit by a 50 mph car, then the cyclist is at least partly at fault. Very possibly 100% at fault, since the cyclist had no right to be on the sidewalk to begin with.
You would have to prove that the driver was in fact driving too fast for conditions or exceeding the posted speed limit, and that they were inattentive.
I do have a question for you, scr4.
Is there any road that you have actually seen or that you can imagine where riding a bicycle is legal, but dangerous enough that you would not ever ride there?
It totally depends where you are. In my neighborhood, I’ll ride in the street. Once I leave my neighborhood and go to the main road, the line on the side of the street is literally ON the edge of the street. There is no choice but to ride in the lane, and there is only one lane in each direction, and the cars drive by at about 50mph. On the other hand, in the year and a half I’ve lived here, I have only ever seen ONE person walking on the sidewalk. If I am riding a bike on the sidewalk, I’ll yield to pedestrians. I don’t see how I’m being “self-centered” by riding in the safe area where NOBODY ELSE IS. (And I’m very careful when I come to intersections. I assume I’m invisible to cars and it is my responsibility to make sure none are around when I cross)
What does your situation have to do with the situation we were discussing?
Would it not be evident from the fact that the driver rear-ended another vehicle which was using the road legally?
Of the roads I’ve seen - no. I’ve ridden bikes in congested cities (Tokyo, Boston, etc), cities heavily dependent on cars (LA, Houston), twisty mountain roads, rural areas on both coasts and the South, long coastal highways, etc. I have seen roads I would prefer to avoid. But I’d ride on any of them if it was the only way to get to my destination.
Of the roads I can imagine - if the road is too dangerous to drive (e.g. iced over or submurged in water), I would also consider it too dangerous to bike. Other than that, no.
It doesn’t matter if it’s self-centered. It is illegal.
If that were the case, why have accident investigations at all?
Then I suppose to you, legal is equivalent to safe, and there is no point in further discussion.
To determine whether the vehicle in front was indeed proceeding legally, and to determine whether the rear vehicle driver was merely inattentive or criminally negligent. The consequences are quite different if you are merely inattentive, or if you were tailgating and harassing the vehicle in front.
No, I acknowledge that some roads are safer than others, and riding on some roads cause more inconvenience to drivers than others. But legal is legal, that’s the bottom line. I don’t have to listen to people who say “it’s legal but don’t do it!”