I-Like-To-Bike

Seems that way.
Lack of knowledge about what happened here, there, or anywhere else doesn't prevent the usual suspects from responding on cue to these click, cut and paste posts with the same old, same old bromides about bicycling safety, the law, motorists, b'crats, cell phones, etc., etc.

jeffwhitfield 

And yet I read stories like this one every day:

https://ride.tech/mobility-lifestyle...ane-expansion/

The move to expand the infrastructure in many cities is a sign of hope that cyclists will be able to ride more in their respective cities in a safer manner. Surely we can look at various areas here and there that could use improvement as well.

And, no, I don’t think we need to look at each and every incident. The only reason this one stuck out for me is due to the numerous posts it received as well as the visceral reaction due to the lackluster sentence given to the driver. Nothing can make it better for the families involved, especially those whose loved ones died.

So, again, I ask: What is the answer? What is your position on this? Is there no room for debate? Or do we simply accept the status quo?

livedarklions

False dichotomy is false. We can discuss these issues without pretending to dissect the behaviors of dead individual cyclists. I don't think any of your musings on the safety of that particular street and whether cyclists should avoid it will have the slightest impact on the status quo.

I've also posted plenty on how I think bicycle advocacy is way too focused on blood and gore discussions and ghost bikes generally, and I think the net effect of most of that effort is to drive people away from the activity from fear.

jeffwhitfield 

I respect your opinion, even if I don’t necessary agree with it.

Saw this story just now:

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2...o-be-a-cyclist

If you think it’s bad here or anywhere else where cyclists are prevalent, just realize there are places where it’s a hell of a lot worse. We’ve gotta overcome the stigma of cyclists here. Otherwise, the animosity between drivers and cyclists will remain the same and cities will be hesitant about improving the infrastructure.

Daniel4

Why not? There definately are people in BikeForums who would like the A&S section closed. They criticize threads discussing road conditions. They criticize threads discussing poor driving behaviour and road bullying. And now they criticize threads about road fatalities.

So how does one contribute to bicycle advocacy and bicycle safety if there are no discussions about advocacy or safety? You can't.

livedarklions

Hate to break it to you, but A&S is pretty underpopulated, with a small number of users arguing with each other over and over. The biggest factor in bicycle safety appears to be the number of cyclists in the area. Advocacy to me means trying to get more people to ride, which is also indirectly a safety measure. A&S has almost no actual advocacy or discussions of how to advocate for cycling, but instead is a bunch of self-appointed experts arguing over their preferred riding techniques, providing their take on news stories about people getting killed, and this junior NTSB thread where people read news stories like they were the Talmud, picking individual words apart for meanings that may or may not be there, then allocating blame based on google maps pics.

To be honest with you, I think this is giving all of the cardinal signs of a dying forum, and monotony is a big reason for that.

mr_bill

FWIW, the criticism is fact free “discussion” about real dead people.

Leading to such absurdities of “that’s why I always take the lane” a day after the killing of a person on a bicycle. Did I mention they in fact took the lane?

But waiting for the facts means, gasp, waiting.

InstAdvocates can’t wait.

-mr. bill

livedarklions

And in most of these cases, waiting isn't really going to matter because the publicly available facts are never going to get clearer.

I suspect 90% of the "analyses" of the behaviour of the cyclists in this forum really take the form of "X must have done ____, and this could never happen to me because I don't do _____."

Rare is the case where we have all the pertinent facts laid out so we don't have to argue from presumptions about other people's behaviors.

If people really want to argue about what the rules should be by some sort of case method, how about we just use hypotheticals where we can just make up the facts and not worry about whether we're unjustly blaming someone for their own demise?

I-Like-To-Bike

Hasn't blaming "texting drivers" in lack of facts or evidence become the go-to response on A&S as the cause of every collision or alleged negative change in bicycling safety "stats"?

mr_bill

Is there a broken record for broken records?

Besides being unable to count, folks in Iowa don't use mobile phones?

-mr. bill

livedarklions

Somebody has to stand up for the poor, maligned texting drivers.

For me, the assertion that this practice isn't rampant passed the "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes" stage long ago. I actually see way more of it driving rather than biking because the vantage point makes it far more apparent--I'm basically looking right at the oncoming drivers and can see where they're looking and where their hands are.