Self-Thinning of the Herd (Witnessing Dangerous/Stupid Behavior on the Road)

I'm sure everyone has witnessed people on the road (pedestrians, cyclists, motorists) doing stupid things that put their lives in danger. Any specific instances come to mind?

2 rules:

1. Specifics only - no 'running reds' or j-walking'. Details needed.
2. Only instances that put the perp in danger. No 'this car almost ran this cyclist over' but 'this car sped across the tracks as the gates were coming down' yes.

Calling them out not needed, but it makes for a better read.

Coming up Halsted around Irving, I pass a cyclist on her cell phone. I look back at her while passing. She blows through the red light at Broadway and Montrose, then she's back on her cell phone coming up to Leland. I look back at her again and this exchange takes place:

Her: Do you have a problem?
Me: Just don't want to see you get killed.
Her: Ok, don't watch.

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on July 26, 2010 at 1:36pm

It's really not an issue of "agreement." She said what she said. I have a deep abiding respect for comedy in all of its varied forms, and her response is, in a word, funny. There are few processes more tedious than deconstructing what's funny and why, and I assure you, this will be no exception. Her three-word response was unexpected. In a backhanded way, it acknowledged all of the concerns you expressed regarding her conduct and her personal safety. It did not attempt to justify her conduct. It acknowledged the distress it was causing you by witnessing her conduct. She made it clear that she would not alter her conduct. She offered a simple, workable solution to alleviate your distress. It was far more sophisticated than an "f-you," or a "mind your own business." It was both smart and funny. Was she cute?

Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:

Not sure if you're agreeing with her comeback or commenting on the "F you, I'll take my life into my own hands." aspect of it.

Either way, I can turn my head, but I can not close off my ears to the accompanying sounds (none of which are sure to be pleasant).

It's a response I'm not going to forget for a while, that's for sure.

Kevin Conway said:
Actually, I love the answer... "OK, don't watch."

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! on July 26, 2010 at 1:40pm

I agree with Kevin, without a doubt, a flawless response.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on July 26, 2010 at 1:43pm

Spencer, thanks for reminding me of why I hated philosophy class. It's always a joy trying to figure out what the hell someone is trying to say. And that comes before deciding whether you agree with it or not.

Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! said:

I think this conversation could use a little help from John Stuart, not of Daily Show fame, but the John Stuart Mill of Utilitarian fame...

The object of this [POST REPLY] is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty page 12.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on July 26, 2010 at 1:52pm

Ok. Thanks for clarifying.

Cute? Mentally?, nope. Physically? Not really, but she could've been a knockout. Since it seems like someone knocked the brain out of her head, it wouldn't have mattered to me.

*awaits for rants about sexism to be brought into the thread*

Kevin Conway said:

It's really not an issue of "agreement." She said what she said. I have a deep abiding respect for comedy in all of its varied forms, and her response is, in a word, funny. There are few processes more tedious than deconstructing what's funny and why, and I assure you, this will be no exception. Her three-word response was unexpected. In a backhanded way, it acknowledged all of the concerns you expressed regarding her conduct and her personal safety. It did not attempt to justify her conduct. It acknowledged the distress it was causing you by witnessing her conduct. She made it clear that she would not alter her conduct. She offered a simple, workable solution to alleviate your distress. It was far more sophisticated than an "f-you," or a "mind your own business." It was both smart and funny. Was she cute?

Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:
Not sure if you're agreeing with her comeback or commenting on the "F you, I'll take my life into my own hands." aspect of it.

Either way, I can turn my head, but I can not close off my ears to the accompanying sounds (none of which are sure to be pleasant).

It's a response I'm not going to forget for a while, that's for sure.

Kevin Conway said:
Actually, I love the answer... "OK, don't watch."

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! on July 26, 2010 at 2:26pm

Tank, basically Mills is saying that ones actions can only reasonably be limited by another if said action will cause harm to another and then only limited in such a fashion to ensure that the harm does not fall on anyone but the actor.

Or in other words, unless you know it'll hurt someone else mind your own business yo.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on July 26, 2010 at 2:52pm

You know of course, if you had said this, she would have told you to "wear earbuds."

Tank-Ridin' Ryan said: Either way, I can turn my head, but I can not close off my ears to the accompanying sounds (none of which are sure to be pleasant).

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on July 26, 2010 at 3:34pm

But her actions can hurt others.

For one thing she can collide with a pedestrian or another cyclist causing them physical harm and injury as well as property damage all resulting in monetary loss. Just because we are in the 90th percentile when it comes to vulnerability out there it does not mean there are not people we can injure.

But there is another aspect to it as well; look back at the story Arrak posted. His mother was permanently traumatized by an accident that was not her fault. Running a light and getting hit by a car may hurt you worse physically but the person you caused to hit you is going to carry it with them forever and I don't think it is really fair to them.

Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! said:

Tank, basically Mills is saying that ones actions can only reasonably be limited by another if said action will cause harm to another and then only limited in such a fashion to ensure that the harm does not fall on anyone but the actor.

Or in other words, unless you know it'll hurt someone else mind your own business yo.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on July 26, 2010 at 4:01pm

Haha, and I would've asked how I accidentally was cycling through a rock concert.

Kevin Conway said:

You know of course, if you had said this, she would have told you to "wear earbuds."

Tank-Ridin' Ryan said: Either way, I can turn my head, but I can not close off my ears to the accompanying sounds (none of which are sure to be pleasant).

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by igz on July 26, 2010 at 4:21pm

i tend to practice what i preach. have i/do i? yes...but in 'safe' circumstances, ie no one else on street, no traffic, etc. definately not flying down one of chicago's busier avenues and boulevards, and not even in a bike lane. and if i fuck up, i will take responsibility. like someone else mentioned...too many are quick to say "why me".

more notable, though...is really the safety issue, and what you mention, if the safety concerns have been evaluated...of talking on phone while on bike, particularly vs car. tho i havent looked up documented studies, i actually believe talking on phone while cycling is more dangerous than driving...

have you ever tried breaking suddenly with only one hand on the bars? its funny to watch from a spectator aspect, not so much the rider. at least in a car, you break with your foot. we can then include the other typical distractions it offers which are the same as a car...impaired hearing, impaired clarity due to mind being elsewhere. We also have impaired mobility due to the one hand on bars, and having to turn to view your peripherals...bikes typically dont have mirrors mounted on, let alone 3 that the car offers.

H3N3 said: