Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by V W on August 25, 2016 at 7:42am

Great work by the security guy to help capture the driver. The article is vague as to whether he actually detained the guy until police got there. It probably helps that he was a security guard and former officer.

Permalink Reply by Maurice on August 25, 2016 at 9:02am

Looks like he didn't get far because he was drunk and his SUV was undriveable.  According to the article (and accompanying picture), he crashed hard enough to collapse the front suspension and knock the side mirror off.  Fortunately, the cyclist survived.

 

Of course, the first comment to the article blames the cyclist for allegedly not having a headlight.

Permalink Reply by Tom A.K. on August 25, 2016 at 9:08am

Ignore 'em !

http://www.tonejonez.com/jonezblog/blog/dealing-with-haters-on-soci...

Permalink Reply by Yasmeen on August 25, 2016 at 9:23am

Maurice wasn't calling him a "hater" or name-calling. He was just pointing out that no matter what facts were presented, the commenter immediately decided to victim blame. This all goes back to the universal concern we are having as cyclists about where the finger tends to get pointed.

Permalink Reply by Tom A.K. on August 25, 2016 at 11:01am

Correct, and I recommended to ignore it. But if you get into the mode where you never refute the incorrect facts that are presented to the public you are not going to accomplish things like winning elections, court cases or convincing the public to understand your viewpoints. You have to decide how much inaccuracy you want out there for others to see and believe because no one is refuting it.
I've already agreed to stop using the 'hater' phase here and am trying to elaborate to others what you and David Barish have recommended.
These types of people are like the article says, "frustrated non-productive types".

Permalink Reply by Jim Reho on August 25, 2016 at 5:55pm

I read that comment.  And you know what, the commenter, who is himself a cyclist, is right.  I'm enormously glad that the cyclist in the collision was not seriously injured.  The driver was clearly at fault.  But it's just plain stupid to be riding on Wacker at 11:30 p.m. without a headlight.  It doesn't matter who's right or wrong.  It's a matter of survival.  And when you're too cool to ride with a headlight at night, that reduces your chances of survival.  If that cyclist had had a headlight like he should have, maybe the driver, intoxicated or not, would have seen him and avoided him.  That comment isn't about blaming the victim, it's about reality.  Don't ride at night without a headlight.  Bad things happen.  When you're dead or injured, it doesn't matter who had the right of way.  I myself, whether when cycling or driving, am really, really tired of cyclists who aren't properly illuminated at night.  I will not excuse or defend them, nor should they ever be excused or defended.  It isn't that hard.

Permalink Reply by Maurice on August 26, 2016 at 5:36am

"That comment isn't about blaming the victim, it's about reality."

 

False dichotomy.

Permalink Reply by Tom A.K. on August 26, 2016 at 6:09am

false dichotomy ‎(plural false dichotomies)

A situation in which two alternative points of views are presented as the only options, whereas others are available.