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.
Views: 507
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by igz on
-
should this be our approach to drivers who talk/text while driving and survive as well?
i thought it should be a mutually exclusive concern and regard to ensure the safety of those around us, to protect them from our carelessness behind the wheel, as well as behind the handlebar.
its a responsibility we as cyclists should subscribe to, especially if we yell 'get off the phone!' to passing suv's with distracted drivers.
H3N3 said:I guess I'm wondering how you can present her death or injury as a near-certainty based on riding a bike while on the phone? People do it every day without getting injured or killed.
Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:I was struck dumb by her comeback, and then I started laughing. She might as well have said "I don't care if I get run over while talking on my phone while on my bike." It was more her response than any beef I have with other cyclists that influenced my thread title, as harsh as it may be. After all, how does one respond to someone who essentially says that a phone call is more important than his or her life? I don't know.
H3N3 said:Ryan,
I read your post, thanks. I was responding specifically to your rant about the cyclist.
Cyclists get it from all sides-- it's sad that, on top of drivers screaming at you and swerving at you you can't get from A to B on your bike without a cyclist coming down on you for some perceived infraction as well.
If it was your goal to encourage her to ride safely I think you could have thought of a better way to get that across, no?
What did you think of her comeback?
-
Permalink Reply by mike w. on
-
So, because "people do it every day" makes it okay?
i see people doing dumbass things every day -some of them for years- and never seem to get injured or killed -until they do.
When the inevitable happens, folks always act so surprised and ask, "why?" Boo Hoo.
H3N3 said:Thanks for the response.
I can't really blame her if she didn't thank you for your concern-- you have to admit the way you communicated it was likely to put her on the defensive.
I guess I'm wondering how you can present her death or injury as a near-certainty based on riding a bike while on the phone? People do it every day without getting injured or killed.
Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:I was struck dumb by her comeback, and then I started laughing. She might as well have said "I don't care if I get run over while talking on my phone while on my bike." It was more her response than any beef I have with other cyclists that influenced my thread title, as harsh as it may be. After all, how does one respond to someone who essentially says that a phone call is more important than his or her life? I don't know.
H3N3 said:Ryan,
I read your post, thanks. I was responding specifically to your rant about the cyclist.
Cyclists get it from all sides-- it's sad that, on top of drivers screaming at you and swerving at you you can't get from A to B on your bike without a cyclist coming down on you for some perceived infraction as well.
If it was your goal to encourage her to ride safely I think you could have thought of a better way to get that across, no?
What did you think of her comeback?
-
Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on
-
Operating a smaller less protected one makes you more likely to die when your attention wanders...
H3N3 said:Iggi,
You don't talk on the cell phone while riding?
There are shades of gray here-- operating a more deadly vehicle greatly increases the chances the choices you make could take others with you. But have we even established that riding a bike while using a phone is dangerous even to the person doing it?
iggi said:should this be our approach to drivers who talk/text while driving and survive as well?
i thought it should be a mutually exclusive concern and regard to ensure the safety of those around us, to protect them from our carelessness behind the wheel, as well as behind the handlebar. its a responsibility we as cyclists should subscribe to, especially if we yell 'get off the phone!' to passing suv's with distracted drivers.
H3N3 said:I guess I'm wondering how you can present her death or injury as a near-certainty based on riding a bike while on the phone? People do it every day without getting injured or killed.
Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:I was struck dumb by her comeback, and then I started laughing. She might as well have said "I don't care if I get run over while talking on my phone while on my bike." It was more her response than any beef I have with other cyclists that influenced my thread title, as harsh as it may be. After all, how does one respond to someone who essentially says that a phone call is more important than his or her life? I don't know.
H3N3 said:Ryan,
I read your post, thanks. I was responding specifically to your rant about the cyclist.
Cyclists get it from all sides-- it's sad that, on top of drivers screaming at you and swerving at you you can't get from A to B on your bike without a cyclist coming down on you for some perceived infraction as well.
If it was your goal to encourage her to ride safely I think you could have thought of a better way to get that across, no?
What did you think of her comeback?
-
Permalink Reply by Spencer "Thunderball" Thayer! on
-
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.
For a rebuttal this The Liberal Critique of the Harm Principle, is pretty decent, http://bit.ly/8Yas35. Note: I don't really agree with the critique author.
-
Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on
-
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."
-
Permalink Reply by Arrak Thumrs on
-
A note regarding mutual concern...
When my mother was younger, she was driving in LaGrange. A young kid on a bike was being chased. He was trying to get away and rode full speed out of an alley, past the sidewalk and... collided straight into and over the front hood/windshield of her car. Later, as an adult, when I became interested in bicycles, I tried to persuade her to ride a bike I made for her to the gym she uses about one mile away. Turns out, after much prodding, she is forever afraid of riding a bicycle in traffic because she associates it with that incident years ago. She believes it is inherently dangerous unless you can ride entirely on dedicated, off-road trails.
This has no bearing on my point or her reaction, but I still find it a poor public service that she received a ticket for that collision even though it was unavoidable as a driver. The cyclist admitted to the police what happened, why, etc. It all went in the police report... but the law apparently dictated that the driver still receive a ticket.
-
-
Based on her "F you, I'll do whatever I want while riding my bike in traffic" attitude, I would bet that yakking on her phone isn't a once-in-a-while occurrence. Mind you, she was on it not once but twice with a mile, and they weren't short yes/no/I'll be there in 5 minutes conversations.
Oh, and no helmet and sunglasses at dusk. But then, maybe she'll beat the laws of probabilities and raise a gaggle of kids who have similar disregard for their own safety.
H3N3 said:Thanks for the response.
I guess I'm wondering how you can present her death or injury as a near-certainty based on riding a bike while on the phone? People do it every day without getting injured or killed. Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:I was struck dumb by her comeback, and then I started laughing. She might as well have said "I don't care if I get run over while talking on my phone while on my bike." It was more her response than any beef I have with other cyclists that influenced my thread title, as harsh as it may be. After all, how does one respond to someone who essentially says that a phone call is more important than his or her life? I don't know.
H3N3 said:Ryan,
I read your post, thanks. I was responding specifically to your rant about the cyclist.
Cyclists get it from all sides-- it's sad that, on top of drivers screaming at you and swerving at you you can't get from A to B on your bike without a cyclist coming down on you for some perceived infraction as well.
If it was your goal to encourage her to ride safely I think you could have thought of a better way to get that across, no? What did you think of her comeback?
-
Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on
-
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."
-
-
I agree with Kevin, without a doubt, a flawless response.
-
-
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.
-
-
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."
-
-
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.
Groups
-
Chicagoland Beer Explora…
203 members
-
Wednesday Night for Mort…
1 member
-
Great Lakes Ultra Cycling
270 members
-
Major Taylor Internation…
1 member
-
Critical Mass discussion
261 members
© 2008-2016 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.
Powered by
