Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

A terrible loss

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

A terrible loss

Old 09-03-21, 12:00 AM
  #26  
LV2TNDM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Northern CA
Posts: 731

Bikes: Cannondale tandems: '92 Road, '97 Mtn. Mongoose 10.9 Ti, Kelly Deluxe, Tommaso Chorus, Cdale MT2000, Schwinn Deluxe Cruiser, Torker Unicycle, among others.

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 275 Post(s)
Liked 201 Times in 127 Posts
Originally Posted by livedarklions
Are you writing a parody? People didn't "joyfully walk the urban landscape" pre-automobile because the streets were so full of horse and human crap and roads were so poorly controlled that crossing them was always a high risk. People were killed by horses and carts and later street cars and trains in large numbers. Leave the history out of it because you obviously have no clue there. A 19th century city was a far more dangerous place than a 21st century city.

Where this ridiculous argument falls apart and turns into the ineffective and absurd brow-beating so beautifully exhibited above is that you cannot give a single plausible reason why using the "better" words will do a single thing to change people's minds. "Crash, collision or incident" do not convey anything about responsibility that "accident" does not. Changing the terms for completely bogus reasons about word usage is so obviously an empty virtue-signalling gesture that ranting as you do here just makes the advocate look silly.

If you really want to adopt a term that conveys what's going on here, I'm all in. You want to adopt something evocative of the real tragedy? Pick a really better term. How about "person/people hit by car/truck" or "vehicular killing and maiming"? If that's too long, how about "vehicular slaughter"?

" Crash" and "collision" don't even refer to people at all, and cover everything from a minor fender bender to ramming a full school bus into a gas truck. "Incident" is even worse than "accident" as it doesn't even convey any sense of misadventure. "Incidental" implies insignificance.
Wow, if you can't possibly wrap your tiny brain around what I wrote, then further explanation won't help. But continuing to use the "A" work makes you complicit in the ongoing immediate exoneration of drivers. You continue to be part of the problem.
LV2TNDM is offline  
Old 09-03-21, 06:11 AM
  #27  
livedarklions
Tragically Ignorant
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,094 Times in 5,053 Posts
Originally Posted by LV2TNDM
Wow, if you can't possibly wrap your tiny brain around what I wrote, then further explanation won't help. But continuing to use the "A" work makes you complicit in the ongoing immediate exoneration of drivers. You continue to be part of the problem.
It would take a tiny brain to buy that you have any clue about anything.
I'll take that petty and pitiful libel as an admission you can't logically answer what I wrote.

And as to my supposed "exoneration of drivers", you're just pointedly ignoring what I actually wrote:

If you really want to adopt a term that conveys what's going on here, I'm all in. You want to adopt something evocative of the real tragedy? Pick a really better term. How about "person/people hit by car/truck" or "vehicular killing and maiming"? If that's too long, how about "vehicular slaughter"?

" Crash" and "collision" don't even refer to people at all, and cover everything from a minor fender bender to ramming a full school bus into a gas truck. "Incident" is even worse than "accident" as it doesn't even convey any sense of misadventure. "Incidental" implies insignificance."

By advocating for "crash" and "collision", you are complicit in disguising the actual nature of the problem.

By advocating for the word "incident", you're complicit in denying that motor vehicles hitting people is even a bad thing. Is that the level of your argument?

Last edited by livedarklions; 09-03-21 at 06:47 AM.
livedarklions is offline  
Old 09-21-21, 07:39 PM
  #28  
JoeyBike
20+mph Commuter
 
JoeyBike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New Orleans, LA USA
Posts: 7,491

Bikes: Surly LHT, Surly Lowside, a folding bike, and a beater.

Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1422 Post(s)
Liked 315 Times in 210 Posts
"Ligon acknowledges that cyclists also have to be cautious when riding, adding they should always ride early in the morning..."

Yeah, make sure the sun is in the motorist's eyes as well. Great advice.
JoeyBike is offline  
Old 09-21-21, 07:43 PM
  #29  
JoeyBike
20+mph Commuter
 
JoeyBike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New Orleans, LA USA
Posts: 7,491

Bikes: Surly LHT, Surly Lowside, a folding bike, and a beater.

Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1422 Post(s)
Liked 315 Times in 210 Posts
Originally Posted by njkayaker
...drivers are required not to be distracted and not to run into cyclists...
Humans are imperfect. Write that on your handlebars with a Sharpie. Every time you hear a car approaching from behind, read it.
JoeyBike is offline  
Old 09-22-21, 04:22 AM
  #30  
Paul Barnard
For The Fun of It
 
Paul Barnard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Louisissippi Coast
Posts: 5,843

Bikes: Lynskey GR300, Lynskey Backroad, Litespeed T6, Lynskey MT29, Burley Duet

Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2131 Post(s)
Liked 1,639 Times in 822 Posts
Originally Posted by JoeyBike
"Ligon acknowledges that cyclists also have to be cautious when riding, adding they should always ride early in the morning..."

Yeah, make sure the sun is in the motorist's eyes as well. Great advice.
The sun low on the horizon is easy to compensate for. It's an excuse, not a reason not to see a cyclist. I am surprised to see so many willing to let that excuse fly.
Paul Barnard is offline  
Old 09-22-21, 05:09 AM
  #31  
livedarklions
Tragically Ignorant
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,094 Times in 5,053 Posts
Originally Posted by Paul Barnard
The sun low on the horizon is easy to compensate for. It's an excuse, not a reason not to see a cyclist. I am surprised to see so many willing to let that excuse fly.

I have roads near me I avoid riding on in the fall evening because they're in a direct line to sundown. I don't know about letting it "fly" as an excuse, but I really don't want to test drivers' ability to "compensate."
livedarklions is offline  
Old 09-22-21, 06:15 AM
  #32  
Paul Barnard
For The Fun of It
 
Paul Barnard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Louisissippi Coast
Posts: 5,843

Bikes: Lynskey GR300, Lynskey Backroad, Litespeed T6, Lynskey MT29, Burley Duet

Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2131 Post(s)
Liked 1,639 Times in 822 Posts
Originally Posted by livedarklions
I have roads near me I avoid riding on in the fall evening because they're in a direct line to sundown. I don't know about letting it "fly" as an excuse, but I really don't want to test drivers' ability to "compensate."
Marginally engaged drivers are an inescapable threat to cyclists. Joey seems to have a pressing need to point out the obvious at every possible opportunity. Whenever we take to the road we place our lives in the hands of drivers who don't exercise due care. Be it glare, sun, shadows or whatever, from an advocacy standpoint we need to rebuke those who would offer those, or any other distractions, as a reason for not seeing or not reacting to a cyclist quickly enough.

Let's say we all took Joey's position on this. His position seems to be that drivers can't see cyclists when the sun is hanging low. How long before drivers start believing cyclists "Don't belong on" the road during the morning and evening? It appears we have some among us (not implying you are one of those) whose primary advocacy message is cyclists are idiots if they ride in a direct line toward the sun. My primary message is that motorists need to use the tools at their disposal, visors, sunglasses, hats etc. to minimize the effects of glare and NEVER outdrive their line of sight. Many cyclists ride because they have to, and they don't always have the luxury of alternative routes.
Paul Barnard is offline  
Old 09-22-21, 07:02 AM
  #33  
livedarklions
Tragically Ignorant
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,094 Times in 5,053 Posts
Originally Posted by Paul Barnard
Marginally engaged drivers are an inescapable threat to cyclists. Joey seems to have a pressing need to point out the obvious at every possible opportunity. Whenever we take to the road we place our lives in the hands of drivers who don't exercise due care. Be it glare, sun, shadows or whatever, from an advocacy standpoint we need to rebuke those who would offer those, or any other distractions, as a reason for not seeing or not reacting to a cyclist quickly enough.

Let's say we all took Joey's position on this. His position seems to be that drivers can't see cyclists when the sun is hanging low. How long before drivers start believing cyclists "Don't belong on" the road during the morning and evening? It appears we have some among us (not implying you are one of those) whose primary advocacy message is cyclists are idiots if they ride in a direct line toward the sun. My primary message is that motorists need to use the tools at their disposal, visors, sunglasses, hats etc. to minimize the effects of glare and NEVER outdrive their line of sight. Many cyclists ride because they have to, and they don't always have the luxury of alternative routes.

Actually, the "advocate" JoeyBike was quoting was, if anything, worse in this regard, basically telling cyclists to stay off the roads when there's any significant traffic, but I understand where you're coming from. I've been extremely critical of Joey, and actually think he should have been banned from this forum years ago as I think he shaded over into anti-cycling advocacy, and he actually asked to be banned. In this case, though, I think he has a point--the "advocate" was missing that any time of day will have its own hazards, and I think the trade-off that the "advocate" suggested was really, really bad. As you say, riders often ride because they have to, and don't necessarily have the luxury of picking the times they're going to be riding either. The "advocate" clearly was looking at cycling as being solely a recreational activity, and seems rather clueless that he was advocating a position that would make it impossible for most people to bike commute, for example.

There is, however, a tension between "safety" and "advocacy" advice. When I do bike commute, my direction is north-south, so taking an east-west street at that time would be a recreational choice. I have that luxury to avoid that. As advice, I would never tell someone "never take a westbound road during evening" because, as you say, that may be tantamount to telling them not to ride that time of day. I would say that if you have a choice between two roads where one lines up with the sunset and one that doesn't, you should probably take the latter, all other things being equal. If we're getting to the point where we dare not suggest such a thing lest our opponents use it as a reason for banning cyclists, I say "screw that", because those people will be coming up with whatever reasons they can think of for that without our help.
livedarklions is offline  
Old 09-22-21, 08:39 AM
  #34  
Paul Barnard
For The Fun of It
 
Paul Barnard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Louisissippi Coast
Posts: 5,843

Bikes: Lynskey GR300, Lynskey Backroad, Litespeed T6, Lynskey MT29, Burley Duet

Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2131 Post(s)
Liked 1,639 Times in 822 Posts
Originally Posted by livedarklions
Actually, the "advocate" JoeyBike was quoting was, if anything, worse in this regard, basically telling cyclists to stay off the roads when there's any significant traffic, but I understand where you're coming from. I've been extremely critical of Joey, and actually think he should have been banned from this forum years ago as I think he shaded over into anti-cycling advocacy, and he actually asked to be banned. In this case, though, I think he has a point--the "advocate" was missing that any time of day will have its own hazards, and I think the trade-off that the "advocate" suggested was really, really bad. As you say, riders often ride because they have to, and don't necessarily have the luxury of picking the times they're going to be riding either. The "advocate" clearly was looking at cycling as being solely a recreational activity, and seems rather clueless that he was advocating a position that would make it impossible for most people to bike commute, for example.

There is, however, a tension between "safety" and "advocacy" advice. When I do bike commute, my direction is north-south, so taking an east-west street at that time would be a recreational choice. I have that luxury to avoid that. As advice, I would never tell someone "never take a westbound road during evening" because, as you say, that may be tantamount to telling them not to ride that time of day. I would say that if you have a choice between two roads where one lines up with the sunset and one that doesn't, you should probably take the latter, all other things being equal. If we're getting to the point where we dare not suggest such a thing lest our opponents use it as a reason for banning cyclists, I say "screw that", because those people will be coming up with whatever reasons they can think of for that without our help.
"There is, however, a tension between "safety" and "advocacy" advice."

I like the way you worded that and agree.

Maybe Joey's previous comments about the sun are shaping my reading of this:

"make sure the sun is in the motorist's eyes as well"

Early in the morning=sun in eyes.

Well, no. It means that there is another potential distraction that motorists can easily mitigate. When I drive in the morning, the sun is not "in my eyes" even when it is low and I am driving directly toward it. The only time it is difficult to mitigate is when the moisture from the previous night isn't completely clear of the windshield, and the sun is just above the horizon. I deal with this sometimes. The first road out of my neighborhood runs due east. If I still have moisture on my windshield and the sun has risen with about the previous 30 minutes, that can seriously impair visibility. I don't drive through that though. I can't imagine anyone doing so.


There's a thread on here about a cycling group that was mowed down by a motorist in Florida. That was one of the many threads where Joey has shown how willing he is to allow motorists to justify the sun being out as an excuse.
Paul Barnard is offline  
Old 09-22-21, 09:06 AM
  #35  
boozergut
Full Member
Thread Starter
 
boozergut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 489

Bikes: Kona Dew, Gary Fisher Paragon, Salsa Campeon

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked 123 Times in 77 Posts
Regarding the incident, the riders were traveling west in the morning on a group ride. The sun was behind them and not a factor in the crash.
boozergut is offline  
Old 09-22-21, 09:17 AM
  #36  
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,950

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,517 Times in 1,031 Posts
Originally Posted by Paul Barnard
Many cyclists ride because they have to, and they don't always have the luxury of alternative routes.
Originally Posted by Paul Barnard
...
Early in the morning=sun in eyes.

Well, no. It means that there is another potential distraction that motorists can easily mitigate. When I drive in the morning, the sun is not "in my eyes" even when it is low and I am driving directly toward it. The only time it is difficult to mitigate is when the moisture from the previous night isn't completely clear of the windshield, and the sun is just above the horizon. I deal with this sometimes. The first road out of my neighborhood runs due east. If I still have moisture on my windshield and the sun has risen with[in] about the previous 30 minutes, that can seriously impair visibility. I don't drive through that though. I can't imagine anyone doing so.
You can't imagine that motorists, like cyclists, don't always have the luxury of alternative routes or alternate times to travel such a route? Why not?

You seem to imagine that it is "easy to mitigate" the visibility and safety issue of driving/riding in the direction of a rising (or setting) sun.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 09-22-21, 09:37 AM
  #37  
Paul Barnard
For The Fun of It
 
Paul Barnard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Louisissippi Coast
Posts: 5,843

Bikes: Lynskey GR300, Lynskey Backroad, Litespeed T6, Lynskey MT29, Burley Duet

Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2131 Post(s)
Liked 1,639 Times in 822 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
You can't imagine that motorists, like cyclists, don't always have the luxury of alternative routes or alternate times to travel such a route? Why not?

You seem to imagine that it is "easy to mitigate" the visibility and safety issue of driving/riding in the direction of a rising (or setting) sun.
I am not imagining anything. It IS easy to mitigate. And IF for some reason or another a motorist can't see what's in the road in front of them, they should correct the problem or stop driving. I find it a bit disturbing that I have to point out the painfully obvious here.
Paul Barnard is offline  
Old 09-22-21, 09:51 AM
  #38  
livedarklions
Tragically Ignorant
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,094 Times in 5,053 Posts
Originally Posted by Paul Barnard
"There is, however, a tension between "safety" and "advocacy" advice."

I like the way you worded that and agree.

Maybe Joey's previous comments about the sun are shaping my reading of this:

"make sure the sun is in the motorist's eyes as well"

Early in the morning=sun in eyes.

Well, no. It means that there is another potential distraction that motorists can easily mitigate. When I drive in the morning, the sun is not "in my eyes" even when it is low and I am driving directly toward it. The only time it is difficult to mitigate is when the moisture from the previous night isn't completely clear of the windshield, and the sun is just above the horizon. I deal with this sometimes. The first road out of my neighborhood runs due east. If I still have moisture on my windshield and the sun has risen with about the previous 30 minutes, that can seriously impair visibility. I don't drive through that though. I can't imagine anyone doing so.


There's a thread on here about a cycling group that was mowed down by a motorist in Florida. That was one of the many threads where Joey has shown how willing he is to allow motorists to justify the sun being out as an excuse.

I don't agree that the sun is always easy to mitigate, I've been in situations where the road is literally lined up directly with the setting sun (not rising, but the principle is the same) and there's very little option but to either pull over or proceed in the knowledge that your vision is to some degree impaired. Yes, there is tinting in eyewear and windshields, but those have their limitations on effectiveness. My point is that there are always factors to be mitigated and dealt with by drivers, and that is literally their job to do, but I refuse to pretend that there aren't limits on those mitigation measures just because someone will use that as an excuse.
livedarklions is offline  
Old 09-22-21, 09:54 AM
  #39  
livedarklions
Tragically Ignorant
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,094 Times in 5,053 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
You can't imagine that motorists, like cyclists, don't always have the luxury of alternative routes or alternate times to travel such a route? Why not?

You seem to imagine that it is "easy to mitigate" the visibility and safety issue of driving/riding in the direction of a rising (or setting) sun.

Drivers have an augmented duty NOT to operate their vehicles under conditions that are unsafe for others. You can pretend the likelihood that bicyclists will seriously harm another person is the same as motor vehicle drivers, but I'm not playing along with that.
livedarklions is offline  
Old 09-22-21, 10:39 AM
  #40  
Paul Barnard
For The Fun of It
 
Paul Barnard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Louisissippi Coast
Posts: 5,843

Bikes: Lynskey GR300, Lynskey Backroad, Litespeed T6, Lynskey MT29, Burley Duet

Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2131 Post(s)
Liked 1,639 Times in 822 Posts
Originally Posted by livedarklions
I don't agree that the sun is always easy to mitigate. I've been in situations where the road is literally lined up directly with the setting sun (not rising, but the principle is the same) and there's very little option but to either pull over or proceed in the knowledge that your vision is to some degree impaired.
I have owned and operated a lot of different vehicles. I used to draw from a motorpool that had all kinds of cars and trucks in it. My day started before sunrise. I was often on the road and heading right into a rising sun. The only time I have had holy crap moments with the sun were when I had moisture on my windshield combined with a very low hanging sun.
Paul Barnard is offline  
Old 09-22-21, 11:16 AM
  #41  
livedarklions
Tragically Ignorant
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,094 Times in 5,053 Posts
Originally Posted by Paul Barnard
I have owned and operated a lot of different vehicles. I used to draw from a motorpool that had all kinds of cars and trucks in it. My day started before sunrise. I was often on the road and heading right into a rising sun. The only time I have had holy crap moments with the sun were when I had moisture on my windshield combined with a very low hanging sun.

What can I say, eyes are different, climates are different, horizon lines are different, road alignments are different. Your experience of this is not a universal truth. I will tell you that about 30 years ago, I was on a highway near the Hoover Dam that traffic essentially came to a standstill because the setting sun was absolutely directly in the eyes of anyone trying to drive on it. It was clearly a road full of people experiencing a "holy crap" moment, no moisture, it was in the desert.. For that matter, just the other day on a MUP, I got blinded for a second while riding my bike.

You're giving me a "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes" proposition here.
livedarklions is offline  
Old 09-22-21, 01:01 PM
  #42  
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,950

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,517 Times in 1,031 Posts
Originally Posted by Paul Barnard
I am not imagining anything. It IS easy to mitigate. And IF for some reason or another a motorist can't see what's in the road in front of them, they should correct the problem or stop driving. I find it a bit disturbing that I have to point out the painfully obvious here.
Right, setting or rising sun vision issues are "easy to mitigate", except when they are not.

Apparently you are not disturbed by the reality that motorists don't always do what you think they "should" do, and a cyclist who finds themselves in an obviously hazardous condition should just make pretend it is easily mitigated by ignoring it.

Your recommended advice to cyclists who must travel in those conditions apparently is to mitigate their own risk by counting on some sort of A&S mantra that motorists "should" stop driving regardless if the motorists also must travel on the same road at the same time for the same reasons as the cyclist.

Last edited by I-Like-To-Bike; 09-22-21 at 01:16 PM.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 09-22-21, 01:13 PM
  #43  
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,950

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,517 Times in 1,031 Posts
Originally Posted by livedarklions
Drivers have an augmented duty NOT to operate their vehicles under conditions that are unsafe for others. You can pretend the likelihood that bicyclists will seriously harm another person is the same as motor vehicle drivers, but I'm not playing along with that.
The elevated risk of injury to a cyclist by a vision impaired motorist due to rising or setting sun is the issue. The reason a cyclist should avoid if at all possible riding in traffic under the hazardous visual conditions discussed in this thread has nothing to do with what damage the cyclist might cause to others under these conditions, that is your construct.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 09-22-21, 02:12 PM
  #44  
livedarklions
Tragically Ignorant
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,094 Times in 5,053 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
The elevated risk of injury to a cyclist by a vision impaired motorist due to rising or setting sun is the issue. The reason a cyclist should avoid if at all possible riding in traffic under the hazardous visual conditions discussed in this thread has nothing to do with what damage the cyclist might cause to others under these conditions, that is your construct.

Well, if we're going to randomly bold things, please let me point out that you were the one who equated drivers with cyclists, "You can't imagine that motorists, like cyclists, don't always have the luxury of alternative routes or alternate times to travel such a route?" therefore making the differences in responsibilities between the two different types of operators relevant.

That "equivalency" is your construct.
livedarklions is offline  
Old 09-22-21, 04:31 PM
  #45  
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,950

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,517 Times in 1,031 Posts
Originally Posted by livedarklions
Well, if we're going to randomly bold things, please let me point out that you were the one who equated drivers with cyclists, "You can't imagine that motorists, like cyclists, don't always have the luxury of alternative routes or alternate times to travel such a route?" therefore making the differences in responsibilities between the two different types of operators relevant.

That "equivalency" is your construct.
"Differences in Responsibilities" relevant to this subject? I don't know what the heck you are constructing this time. My previous comment was clearly pointing out that motorists are just like cyclists and don't always have the option of selecting a different time or route to travel to their destination. You chose to find a unique (and incorrect) interpretation of another poster's remarks for reasons unknown.

Last edited by I-Like-To-Bike; 09-22-21 at 04:35 PM.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 09-22-21, 05:01 PM
  #46  
livedarklions
Tragically Ignorant
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,094 Times in 5,053 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike
"Differences in Responsibilities" relevant to this subject? I don't know what the heck you are constructing this time. My previous comment was clearly pointing out that motorists are just like cyclists and don't always have the option of selecting a different time or route to travel to their destination. You chose to find a unique (and incorrect) interpretation of another poster's remarks for reasons unknown.

Well, motorists are not just like cyclists. First of all, they do bear more responsibility for protecting other people from the consequences of their routing decisions. Second, they are actually more likely to have flexibility in their routing decisions and times by virtue of the fact that there are faster restricted roads available to them. They are also less likely to have significant issues with weather impeding them.

So yeah, I think it's a direct refutation of your "construct", whatever that's supposed to mean. I think it's a whole lot more reasonable to expect drivers to choose a safer but less direct route than it is to demand the same from cyclists. It's not even close on a cost/benefit calculation.

What's your point, anyway? That drivers get a free pass if they hit someone because they chose to operate a multi-ton vehicle blinded by the sun?
livedarklions is offline  
Old 09-23-21, 07:11 AM
  #47  
livedarklions
Tragically Ignorant
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,094 Times in 5,053 Posts
Originally Posted by boozergut
Regarding the incident, the riders were traveling west in the morning on a group ride. The sun was behind them and not a factor in the crash.

First of all, I am very sorry for your tragic loss. None of my quarrels with people on this thread have been aimed at you or anything your family member did or did not do. My arguments have been with people who try to use a tragedy like this for rhetorical purposes, claiming it illustrates whatever their pet peeve or agenda happens to be. They may or may not be well-intentioned, but I think such tragedies are used by people to cloak their very questionable assertions in some sort of "cloak of immunity," using it to label the person questioning it "anti-cyclist" or a "driver apologist" or "insensitive". Let me be very clear, I am not accusing you of having done that, quite the contrary, I think your thread and your posts have been extremely appropriate. It's important to remind everyone that the victims of these crashes have families who suffer as well.

Among the people who I have a major disagreement with is the Mr. Ligon quoted in the article you posted. I find the message that cyclists should "only" ride in the early morning deeply anti-cyclist, implying that it is our job to ride only when it is convenient for drivers to avoid hitting us, and making it clear that cyclists on the road should be an exceptional, not a routine, event. I don't know Mr. Ligon, I have no idea what his intentions were, but I'm sorry he would use your family's tragedy to spread such a message. If anything, it might imply that Clint somehow bore some responsibility for his own death, a message I would find extremely offensive were it my family member.
livedarklions is offline  
Old 09-25-21, 01:48 AM
  #48  
livedarklions
Tragically Ignorant
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 15,613

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8186 Post(s)
Liked 9,094 Times in 5,053 Posts
Originally Posted by JoeyBike
So they just went West? Where did they end up? California?
Wow, so in your mind, this means they were going east and west at the time they got hit? Are you really so desperate to find a reason that this person's family member was responsible for his own killing that you didn't realize how stupid, irrelevant, and just plain mean this comment was?

You should definitely be banned at this point. Just leave already.

BTW, I had an early morning eastbound bike commute in New Orleans. The sun was never an issue. Fog, sometimes, but no big deal.

Last edited by livedarklions; 09-25-21 at 01:58 AM.
livedarklions is offline  
Likes For livedarklions:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.