JoeyBike

Being murdered by a "hit man" while walking down the street, driving a car, in a bed, or riding a bike, has nothing to do with bicycle safety or advocacy no matter what the victim is doing or wearing.

This belongs in Foo.

njkayaker

Being murdered by a "hit man" while walking down the street, driving a car, in a bed, or riding a bike, has nothing to do with bicycle safety or advocacy no matter what the victim is doing or wearing.[/QUOTE]


You brought up "dehumanizing cyclists" due to what they cloths they wear

This is an example that what they wear isn't an issue.

If your post was appropriate, this post is appropriate.

jon c. 

I agree as far as policy is concerned. It somewhat surprises me that this one would generate heated discussion. It's a terrible crime, but it's not the sort of thing one can protect one's self against. I think most everyone would agree that the perps should be prosecuted to the greatest extent the law allows. There really shouldn't be anything controversial in such an incident.

njkayaker

The moderators have (likely) seen many examples of how these sorts of threads can play out.

There also might be some idea of not having discussions about things people might find disturbing (which would be reasonable in this case!) in places where people aren't expecting it.

This event isn't really a "general cycling" topic.

They aren't saying people can't discuss them. Just not in a particular forum.

Just up-thread, we have a poster who is rejecting this as a topic in this forum. A poster who, in another thread here, talks about "wearing leotards" as "dehumanizing cyclists".

JoeyBike

I was not including intentional assault on cyclists in any post i may have written. To go out hunting people down with the intent to run them over is an entirely different scenario.

What is the safety message here? I would certainly advocate for NOT running people over on purpose, but that is not the type of Advocacy intended here.

njkayaker

???

So, you only care about "dehumanizing cyclists" if it's not so bad.

Clearly, that cyclist was not safe.

There's no "rule" that prevents discussing safety issues you don't have control over. That's just some nonsense you are making up.

Clearly, the moderators don't have an issue with it. So, who the heck are you to try to overrule them?

You are just drawing an arbitrary line between stuff you approve of and stuff you don't.

You are advocating censorship, not discussion.

JoeyBike

ZERO bicyclists are "safe". Balancing on two wheels comes with the territory.

You have yet to tell us exactly what you deem a safety issue with the OP. Everybody who steps out their front door is susceptible to being murdered.

I have not contacted any moderators about this or any other post on BF over 15+ years I've been here. I don't care what they do.

Oh, I enjoy the "Bicycle Crash of the Day" posts as much as the next guy. I still don't see the connection to A&S. I don't see a safety message that we should learn from here. You should spell that out to us so we can end this discussion. I'm happy to learn and willing to let this go. I'll even admit that you are the winner of the Internet today.

Spell...it...out.

Straw man nonsense. And i've been "censored" here aplenty. I'm just not a crybaby about it because this is not a public square.

njkayaker

??? I'm not suggesting you contact the moderators.

I'm saying the moderators' actions indicate they disagree with you thinking this is an inappropriate topic for this subforum.

So what? That you don't manage to see a connection isn't relevant (or a requirement) at all.

It really doesn't belong in the general subforum. It doesn't clearly belong in the P&R thread.

A&S readers are somewhat used to dealing with disturbing/controversial issues. And people who don't want to deal with disturbing/controversial issues learn quickly to avoid A&S.

There doesn't seem to be any other more-appropriate subforum beyond A&S.

It serves as a counter to your nonsense about "matching leotards" dehumanizing cyclists.

If you can talk about things that supposedly promote "dehumanizing cyclists", it's completely appropriate to show examples where that didn't work.

I have said this multiple times.

This is dumb. It seems fairly clear that this particular incident was closely related to cycling.

Nope. You want this topic to be censored (since A&S is the only practical place for it). Even after the moderators have explicitly approved it being an appropriate topic for A&S.

JoeyBike

Maybe you will enlighten me as to how the story relates to BICYCLE safety. The mods didn't put it here as a rebuttable to my statement(s) regarding cycling kits.

How can we (cyclists) protect ourselves from murderers? What action can / should we take to avoid being run over on our bikes on purpose (other than becoming non-cyclists)?

If you can't give a definitive answer as to why this is here then you and I have something in common.

If I were a moderator it would be in Foo. This is my OPINION. Where the mods dump it is their business.

Desert Ryder

I guess the safety aspect would be always try to be aware of what's going on around you. Would some sort of mirror have given him a few seconds warning?
Could this be a thread advocating bicycle rear radar sensors like the Garmin Varia?

To get back on track.....these are the 2 that did this disgusting act.....

work4bike

Pics of them in this link


https://news.yahoo.com/las-vegas-tee...l&uh_test=0_00

PeteHski

I was thinking whether or not my Garmin Varia would have helped in this situation. I think it might have if they were lurking behind the cyclist for a few seconds before the hit. Or if they had come straight in at high speed.

vespasianus

Commit and adult crime, get treated like an adult.

JW Fas

It keeps getting worse:

They stole four cars that day and hit another cyclist (a 72-year-old man) earlier that day. He fortunately survived.

vespasianus

What the hell is wrong with people. I know as a nation, we are getting stupider but this is ridiculous.

njkayaker

It clearly relates to your other A&S post about dehumanizing cyclists since it is an example of a cyclist being dehumanized.

Clearly, the bicyclist wasn't safe. Thus, it relates to BICYCLIST safety in a ridiculously OBVIOUS WAY. (That he wasn't able to do anything about it doesn't change that.)

Note, too, that no one else is agreeing with you that this is not appropriate for A&S.

Since sort of event is something that might discourage people from cycling, it relates to advocacy too!

So what? Like really. So what?

The facts are:

1. The moderators make the rules.
2. The moderators moved the post into A&S.
3. Therefore, the topic is appropriate to A&S,

You are just making crap up here.

That there is no option to avoid an incident does not preclude discussion about that incident.

It's possible (even if it's not likely) he wouldn't have gotten run over if he was on the sidewalk. Doing so might have reduced his risk. (NO: I'm not suggesting that he should have done that.)

And, of course, many, many people reduce the risk of riding on roads by either not riding or choosing to ride elsewhere (not on roads).

So, while you imagine "nothing can be done", you mentioned one thing and missed other actions that people do routinely!

Clearly, foo is more for "warm and fuzzy" (and not potentially controversial or disturbing) posts. So, foo isn't right either. (You clearly have no idea what gets kicked out of foo.)

Roughstuff

Gee looking at the photos I'm so SURPRISED!

I think this does have bearing on "advocacy and safety" because effective timely prosecution and sentnecing will prevent such behavior from becoming more widespread.

Roughstuff

The Ferguson effect comes home to roost.

jon c. 

Sociopathic behavior is nothing new. The annals of history are full of unspeakable acts.

Paul Barnard

If you don't like the topic, just shut up and keep out.

JoeyBike

The topic doesn't offend me. It illustrates perfectly a bicycle safety issue I've been preaching here a long time. Just prodding and waiting for someone ELSE to figure it out.

Hint:



Merriam-Webster

jack pot 

To the A & S strict constructionists > if the dead & maimed would wear "Take a Look" mirrors they might have had a prayer of a chance

njkayaker

Probably not (outside of a very slim chance).

Mirrors and the Varia work more to keep you from moving left when there's traffic there. If you are keeping your line and somewhat to the right, you are generally relying on drivers not to move to their right to mow you over.

It looks like the victim would have had to hop a curb (which has its own tangible risks).

If you spend too much time looking at your mirror, you spend less time looking forward (where there is more need to avoid stuff). That's one advantage of the Varia: you don't to look anywhere for it to work.

Mirrors/etc are useful but too many people think they "do magic" and work better than they can.

retswerb

Reported as a racist dog whistle.

There's no reason we should even be publicizing their pictures - it only leads to nonsense like this. Here's the only face we should be remembering here:

njkayaker

Since you keep insisting it doesn’t belong here, that someone else appears to be YOU!