:rolleyes: Not in any way shape or form comparable to what I said. If you have anything relevant to add about bicycle safety, please feel free to do so.
What you wrote:
That, you see, is victim blaming. You all but flatly state that cyclists bear more responsibility for actions like the SUV driver in the OP than the driver does.
Maybe, just maaaaybe the drivers could pay attention, grow a little patience and not pull stunts like the OP describes in the first place.
Yes, I quite agree, telling cyclists they should arrange to be visible if they want car drivers to see them, and possibly shouldn’t ride so fast that they cannot stop in an emergency, is exactly the same as telling a young woman that she shouldn’t have worn a short skirt if she didn’t want to be raped.
See, right there you are making assumtpions.
First: that the OP did not already have these visibility steps in place.
Second: it often doesn’t matter what a cyclist wears or does to illuminate themselves. Drivers far too often just don’t bother or don’t notice, or in far too many cases, just don’t care if they smash a cyclist.
Turning around and implying it is the cyclists fault for not making themsevles visible enough is victim blaming.
How are my words - “should take some responsibility” in your mind more responsibility?
It’s not victim blaming. It’s common sense that MOST but not all cyclists practice.
Would just like to correct some misinformation versus passing on a hill versus downhill.
It is easier to pass while going downhill in all situations. It has to do with the amount of power required by the leading vehicle to maintain speed on an uphill.
Let’s assume that the vehicles involved have roughly similar power-to-weight ratios and acceleration capability, and start the passing maneuver from similar cruising speeds.
For the leading vehicle to maintain its cruising speed while going uphill, it has to use a higher throttle opening that it would at a level cruise.
This means that to accelerate past this vehicle, you would have to use an even higher throttle opening to both fight the increased gravity and accelerate past the lead vehicle.
At high grades, your lead vehicle could be using (for example) 80% of their available power to maintain their speed. Your use of full throttle makes for a piddly 20% differential in applied power versus the lead vehicle.
The opposite is true while going downhill. You have a much larger available power differential between you and the lead vehicle to draw upon. The lead vehicle may only need 10% of their available power to maintain their cruising speed, and you would be able to bring an additional 90% to bear while passing.
Women wear skirts/dresses. MOST of them wear an appropriate length - between the knee & ankle. However, a few of them show some thigh & well, it’s hardly fair to blame the guy when he sees so much skin. :rolleyes:
All situations? Nope.
You can’t make the following assumptions and use the qualifier ‘all’ above.
And very, very often the slow vehicle being passed, even if is the exact same kind of car as the passer, will speed up going downhill. Or slow down going uphill. Happens to me a lot. It really sucks when they speed up going downhill. Preventing you from passing only to slow down again when things level out.
Why did you quote my response to Mr. Miskatonic in your post #27?
That all may be technically true, but in practice, when going uphill most drivers tend to unconsciously slow down, by as much as 10mph or more, because they do not compensate to maintain a constant speed. When on cruise control, just by maintaining a constant speed, I always catch up with and blow by drivers in front of me when going uphill because of this. Going downhill, gravity is accelerating all of the vehicles, and a passing car will need to achieve an even higher speed in order to overtake another vehicle.
Edit window closed.
AFAICT, all of Bald Peak Road is double-yellow except for one section that allows passing on the downhill side and one that allows passing in both directions but has practically no grade.
And there you go also drawing the same false equivalence as Mr Miskatonic. I’m fairly sure you’ll find that in many places the law actually does require road users to take responsibility to see and be seen - lights, reflectors and so on. Implying this is in any way comparable to requiring women to dress modestly or accept a share of blame for their own rape is, in my view, despicable and trivializes the suffering of rape victims.
I also note that Mr Miskatonic made no further attempt to justify careering down a hill unable to stop.
*Drivers far too often just don’t bother or don’t notice, or in far too many cases, just don’t care if they smash a cyclist. *
I just quit considering anything else you say in this thread because of these statements.
I make wild statements like this when I am typing while spittle is flying from my mouth. I get called on it too.
IMO, you have no actual experience with either side of the thread.
No one is saying that either side is wrong. Just that neither side is totally innocent.
Point of fact, most of the time, bicyclist and motor cycle riders in individual settings of all kinds are harder to see than vehicles with 4 or more wheels. They are less expected to be seen in most places & times.
So, being proactive in the visibility department, being aware that motorist are not looking as hard for them, that being proactive in all ways, wither it is fair or not is in their best interests.
Let’s just say that 2-3 other posters in this thread have probably 100 time the experience in these situations than you do. Unless you care to enlighten us on this.
Were this happening at night or even at dusk that might have some credence. As it is the visibility requirements seem to have been more than met.
Victim blaming is victim blaming, whether you are pulling the ‘sexy clothes’ gambit or blaming a car break-in victim for leaving a quarter in the footwell.
There is a far difference between being able to stop and being able to stop in time. Unless the OP had no brakes at all I assumed he was implying that he would not be able to stop in time to avoid an SUV approaching him at equal or greater speed.
Without investigation on my part, this looks like the SUV was doing an illegal maneuver.
At least the OP’s survivors will get more INS $$$$ this way. Does not help the OP nor will people be all, "but he was in the ‘right’ about it. He is just dead right.
Pass a law… wait… there is already lots of laws about this.
Last month I was riding when a car raced into the oncoming lane to pass a car that was moving slowly (probably looking for a parking space). The situation was similar to what the OP had except that a) I was on a flat road and b) there was a parking lane with the minor possibility of space to dive into in a more dire circumstance. As it was I was hammering along pretty well (nowhere near the OP’s speed) but had to slam on my breaks and skid out the bike to avoid being his hood ornament. The driver’s response to my “WTF?!” expression was to flip me the bird. He then roared his engine to race to the red light just down the road.
I’m on this road a lot and this sort of thing isn’t common, but it does happen. Much more often drivers try passing in the areas where the road is curved and you cannot see oncoming car traffic. Once in a while a car does come the other way and the passing car tries to squeeze back into the lane with me in it. They saw me enough to pass me unsafely, but didn’t care once
Just last week while riding on a Multi-Use trail, I watched as a car pulled off the parallel drive (there was an entrance to a parking lot there) and turned onto the MUT so he could make a U-turn without wasting time by going through the parking lot. He didn’t even check to see if his illegal maneuver might have resulted in an encounter with a cyclist, jogger, rollerblader, or dog-walker in a place where they were actually expected to be. This driver had the grace to look apologetic.
I ride a lot. It is my primary mode of transportation. But I encounter this callous attitude towards my safety far too often. The fact that so many folks first blame the cyclist and make excuses for the unsafe driver in the OP does irk me. Go figure.
It was not until post 15 that the OP said he was slowing down but not fast enough.
He said in the OP that he was aiming for the SUV.
He does not bring up the fact that he thought he as slow enough to survive a head on collision until post 15.
Post #1 had much drama for attention IMO.
The OP knew in advance that they SUV was deliberately breaking the law and then was lamenting that he was not seen by this kind of driver and from links posted by Skywatcher, the road does not look like it has much of a straight stretch anywhere that would induce a driver to try to pass, much less legally.
Also, checking elevations, the exact point would be needed to determine if the road was anywhere near 8-10° grade.
IMO, the admitted guess work by the OP was pretty far off.
None of this makes the OP any less traumatized nor the driver any less guilty of bad choices but it all goes to show that it does happen. Probably a lot.
IMExperience, that first few feet off the side of the road posted by SKW is not nearly as dangerous as a head on at any speed.
YMMV
Unless this was in an area with a single line of trees followed by a sudden drop. 