The Chainlink

This sums up what a lot of people think. Throwing it out there.

Views: 855

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Considering the website it appears on, and after reading this crap, it's clear this is lowest common denominator rather than intelligent commentary but that's just me. 

White bicycles on the side of the road illicit at best mixed emotions from me. “One less,” I often find myself thinking as I nod silently and appreciate the fact that there’s no one wobbling in front of my car, forcing me to drive 20 miles under the speed limit.

Wow. Rob Fox just published his insensitive, self-absorbed rant 19 hours ago. What timing. What an idiot. After what JUST happened in Kalamazoo, I hope Rob Fox is roasted for his insensitive words. I've been wiping back tears all week over what happened to our fellow members of the cyclist community. We need change, not impatient motorists saying how happy they are to see a ghost bike.

Just a reminder, here's a link with the updates and how to help the victims of this senseless act of violence:

It's poorly-timed, unintelligent writing that (poorly) sums up a lot of home truths. 

We do need change, and a whole lot of cyclists need to consider modifying their stance of refusing to take at least a modicum of responsibility for it.

If cyclists are welfare moms, cars are the military budget plus corporate welfare.

Let's see who gets that analogy.

I get it and it's not a terrible analogy.  A bit facile but not the worst I've heard.

But who are the pedestrians?  That's where this breaks down.  They're arguably the most innocent in this, and the most terrorized.  If we're talking environmental impact, they're the most noble.  And yet they're terrorized not only by the corporate elite cars, but - more so- by the welfare mom bikers. If I'm with my kids and crossing with a stop sign or green light, and I see (a) a range rover or (b) a hipster on a bike approaching, I'm far more terrified of the latter.  Sure, the range rover would do more damage, but the chances are far greater that it won't. 

And I'm an avid cyclist who despises what a huge percentage - probably a majority - of my fellow cyclists regularly do to pedestrians and cars.  I guess I'm the hardworking mom who came off welfare, holds down two jobs, and goes to night school. 

Finally, your analogy fails to take into account the respective contributions of the various parties.  Yes, gas-guzzling behemoths are a cancer.  But everything is a trade off to some degree.  Bike components and tires use natural resources too.  It's an offset.  I truly wonder about the relative effects on productivity, etc., that cars vs. bikes truly have.

I could not be more serious.  I've been hit by a cyclist crossing with a green on Michigan Avenue.  I regularly have to wait for cyclists to illegally blow stop signs before crossing.  My children have frequently almost been hit, and avoided injury only by my wife or me pulling them back in time.  I presume you spend a lot of the time on a bike and little time as a pedestrian, since most people I know agree.

So the fact that you've had a few bad experiences with cyclists, which in the worst scenario would have caused perhaps some serious injury, leads you to be more concerned about the minor thread of a bike than the major threat of a car? If you are in fact serious about this, I urge you to reconsider your thinking, if not for your sake, then for the sake of your kids.

As to the first part, yes.  It does cause me (and many others) more concerns about cyclists following the rules vs. drivers.  Of course, you're right that a car would cause far more injury, but that's a fallacy.  A meteor falling on my head would cause even more damage than either, but it's not something I worry about given the remoteness of the chance that it would occur.  An exaggeration, but we make these risk analyses every day.

Whoah. How did I miss this? Sorry Tony. Cooper, please familiarize yourself with the community usage policy. This comment and the one to David are in violation.

Apparently, we have had different experiences.

And while I appreciate a good sarcastic comment, "I'd rather get hit by a bike than a car any day" is silly and undermines your argument.  Of course, I would too.  I'd rather get hit by a bike than a lot of things that aren't as likely to happen.


He isn't being serious.  He is trying to be provocative.  I can tell by the ad hominem attack against the cyclist in his example.  Also, notice how he assigns movement to the bike, but doesn't assign movement to the range rover in an effort to get the reader to view the bike as more dangerous.

Any pedestrian (without personal biases) at a crosswalk, would be rightly more fearful of an approaching car than an approaching bicycle.  Recent articles show the deadly consequences of drivers not operating automobiles with care.

dead 7 year old , DUI , hit and run

"Cyclists are all (or mostly) dangerous" is a fallacy.

We often imagine these reckless New York bike messenger-like people, Marshall says. The criticism gathered by the survey was sometimes quite venomous, he said, even when discussing perfectly legal maneuvers, such as coming into and taking the lane.

“People think that is rude.”

The study gathered similar rates of infraction — 8 percent to 9 percent for drivers, and 7 to 8 percent for cyclists. And when Marshall researched the reasons a cyclist might break a traffic law, it turns out they are doing it for nearly the same reasons that a driver would, but with one difference.

Drivers and pedestrians will drive through or walk against a red light to save time.

“They’re not trying to be reckless or rude,” Marshall said. “Cyclists, they’re doing it for their own personal safety or perceived safety. They felt like they’re more visible.”

On a transportation grid designed with cars in mind, Marshall says cyclists are acting on what they perceive is better for their safety. It is a rational choice in a cyclist’s decision-making, he said. At a red light with no other cars crossing, a cyclist can get a head start on the next block.

You have every right to form a conclusion based on your own perceptions. I'm just more than a little surprised at the perception that you are more safe with your kids in a crosswalk with an SUV (that may or may not be texting) than a "hipster on a bike". There's a higher possibility the driver is on their phone in some capacity or just plain distracted. On the other hand, a cyclist is very aware of their surrounding and if they do the annoying thing of coming too close to pedestrians, it does tend to be a calculated maneuver. I'm not saying I agree with it, I am saying they have control of their bike and awareness of their surroundings. Can you say as much for the SUV driver?

In 2013, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports motor vehicle collisions were responsible for 4,735 pedestrian fatalities nationwide, and for injuring another 66,000. Can you provide a statistic for the number of pedestrians nationwide hit by cyclists? Or killed by cyclists?  

I don't think it's all or mostly.  But you tend to not notice those who follow the rules. 

I disagree with this, from experience, but a small sample size, of course:

On the other hand, a cyclist is very aware of their surrounding and if they do the annoying thing of coming too close to pedestrians, it does tend to be a calculated maneuver. I'm not saying I agree with it, I am saying they have control of their bike and awareness of their surroundings. Can you say as much for the SUV driver?


© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service