BandedRail wrote:That has is right up there with one of the most crazy pieces of "advice" I've heard in a while. I've been hit by bottles deliberatley thrown at me from cars (and a few near misses), been slapped by passengers in passing cars (the driver had to swerve to the left to allow the passenger to do it), been doored, been bullied off the road, beeped at, abused and nearly cleaned out by numerous smug-faced drop-kicks in over-sized, over-powered, [expletive]-extensions ignoring my right to be on the road. I've also had numerous incidents with other cyclists being arrogant, dangerous, self-centred drop-kicks. On a number of these occasions it was MY ACTIONS that prevented me being seriously injured or worse. As far as I can recall for all of these incidents I was just obeying all the rules, keeping to myself and just trying to get from A to B. Assuming other people are all "kittens & fluffy clouds" is a great way to get yourself broke/hurt/dead.
In one case, it was the passergers, not the drivers of any passing vehicles, passengers could not possibly be breaking the road rules, at least not at their own disgression. Thae way I think of it is that if the driver is breaking the road rules, than all the occupants are also breaking those same rules, but at the drivers disgression, note that the driver has autonamy over (controlling the position of) everyone in the vehicle. One those occasions, it would be your evasive actions (such as stopping, slowing down and swerving), not your assumption about their intentions that prevented your being seriously injured or worse. If you were polite and assumed good faith but still took the same evasive action(s), the result would still be the same. Whether a good or bad faith assuming pedestrian stops to a avoid the cyclist you mentioned, the result of the evasive action is the same. But if you yell at the cyclist who did it, they may become frustrated. Is there anyone here who has more empathy for others?
BandedRail wrote:That has is right up there with one of the most crazy pieces of "advice" I've heard in a while. I've been hit by bottles deliberatley thrown at me from cars (and a few near misses), been slapped by passengers in passing cars (the driver had to swerve to the left to allow the passenger to do it), been doored, been bullied off the road, beeped at, abused and nearly cleaned out by numerous smug-faced drop-kicks in over-sized, over-powered, [expletive]-extensions ignoring my right to be on the road. I've also had numerous incidents with other cyclists being arrogant, dangerous, self-centred drop-kicks. On a number of these occasions it was MY ACTIONS that prevented me being seriously injured or worse. As far as I can recall for all of these incidents I was just obeying all the rules, keeping to myself and just trying to get from A to B. Assuming other people are all "kittens & fluffy clouds" is a great way to get yourself broke/hurt/dead.
In one case, it was the passergers, not the drivers of any passing vehicles, passengers could not possibly be breaking the road rules, at least not at their own disgression. Thae way I think of it is that if the driver is breaking the road rules, than all the occupants are also breaking those same rules, but at the drivers disgression, note that the driver has autonamy over (controlling the position of) everyone in the vehicle. One those occasions, it would be your evasive actions (such as stopping, slowing down and swerving), not your assumption about their intentions that prevented your being seriously injured or worse. If you were polite and assumed good faith but still took the same evasive action(s), the result would still be the same. Whether a good or bad faith assuming pedestrian stops to a avoid the cyclist you mentioned, the result of the evasive action is the same. But if you yell at the cyclist who did it, they may become frustrated. Is there anyone here who has more empathy for others?
And that has to be one of the worst replies I've seen in a while. Quite apart from the poor spelling, grammar, sentence & paragraph structure there are some serious flaws. When I was slapped the driver moved to the left to be as close to me as possible to allow the passenger to slap me - so YES, both the passengers & the driver are at fault (the passenger assaulted me, not a "road rule" but a still a rule and a serious one at that).
Myrtone wrote:One those occasions, it would be your evasive actions (such as stopping, slowing down and swerving), not your assumption about their intentions that prevented your being seriously injured or worse. If you were polite and assumed good faith but still took the same evasive action(s), the result would still be the same. Whether a good or bad faith assuming pedestrian stops to a avoid the cyclist you mentioned, the result of the evasive action is the same."
And which "One those occasions" would that be? Were you there when the motorists looked straight at me and still drove through the compulsory stop with a smug grin on their face forcing me to take evasive action? Or when the car sidled up side me and then swerved hard to the left forcing me to again brake hard and nearly stack? I could go on (and on and on and on - 38 years of cycling has been "fun-filled" to say the least). And by the way "Whether a good or bad faith assuming pedestrian stops to a avoid the cyclist you mentioned...", I never mentioned any pedestrians or any cylist/pedestrian incident either.
Myrtone wrote:Is there anyone here who has more empathy for others?
Who are you referring to you? Are you saying YOU have more empathy for others [than anyone else on this thread]?
BandedRail wrote:And that has to be one of the worst replies I've seen in a while. Quite apart from the poor spelling, grammar, sentence & paragraph structure there are some serious flaws. When I was slapped the driver moved to the left to be as close to me as possible to allow the passenger to slap me - so YES, both the passengers & the driver are at fault (the passenger assaulted me, not a "road rule" but a still a rule and a serious one at that).
Myrtone wrote:One those occasions, it would be your evasive actions (such as stopping, slowing down and swerving), not your assumption about their intentions that prevented your being seriously injured or worse. If you were polite and assumed good faith but still took the same evasive action(s), the result would still be the same. Whether a good or bad faith assuming pedestrian stops to a avoid the cyclist you mentioned, the result of the evasive action is the same."
And which "One those occasions" would that be? Were you there when the motorists looked straight at me and still drove through the compulsory stop with a smug grin on their face forcing me to take evasive action? Or when the car sidled up side me and then swerved hard to the left forcing me to again brake hard and nearly stack? I could go on (and on and on and on - 38 years of cycling has been "fun-filled" to say the least). And by the way "Whether a good or bad faith assuming pedestrian stops to a avoid the cyclist you mentioned...", I never mentioned any pedestrians or any cylist/pedestrian incident either.
The reason for the poor spelling and grammar is that it is really hard to deal with your insitance on assuming bad faith. If the driver move to the left to allow the passengers to slap you, you do indeed have very strong evidence of bad faith, that doesn't mean you have such evidence even most of the time. In the cyclist/pedestrian incident someone else mentinoned, there was no evidence of bad faith, none. And anyway, I know it must have been your (evasive) actions, not your assumptions that kept you from being hit. If you did assume good faith but still took those same actions, the result would still be the same. If a car sidles up up side you and then swerves hard to the left, the result of braking hard is the same, regardless of what you say to the motorist, or whether they had bad intentions or made an honest miskate. Can't you discriminate intentions and assumptions from actions?!? That they want to hit you is not something you assume without sufficient strong evidence.
Felt the front tyre going soft on my morning commute, and thought I could make it into work (only another 15 minutes or so). I'd forgotten all about it when taking a fast left hander, and the front wheel let go on my. Kudos the rider behind who stopped to ask if I was ok. Bike only sustained minimal cosmetic damage, and I lost some skin from the elbow, hip, knee, and side of the calf muscle.
Myrtone wrote:If you did assume good faith but still took those same actions, the result would still be the same. If a car sidles up up side you and then swerves hard to the left, the result of braking hard is the same, regardless
Crikey no. Its the difference between being set up for an emergency brake and suddenly out of the blue having to do an emergency brake. Most of a second.. or maybe 25 metres.
One can be set up for an emergency brake and still that assume they didn't want to hit you, either way the result of being set up is the same. Conversingly one may suddenly to do an emergency brake and assume they didn't care whether they hit you, that does not change the result of the latter.
Myrtone wrote:Have you seriously not heard of the concept of assuming good faith.
Not on the roads mate. Too dangerous.
Key rule to stay alive - assume everyone else is an idiot until they show otherwise. Act accordingly. To take any other approach is to be a complete numpty, and likely a short-lived one.
+1 and I believe my driving instructor told me the same. I've been a commuting cyclist, a postie, an interstate truck driver, a motorcycle courier and a paramedic in my time. Assume the person you are sharing the road with is either an incompetent fool or potential a homicidal maniac in a 1 tonne plus vehicle/weapon. You have a much greater chance of surviving to old age. Doesn't mean you have to behave beligerently on the road towards others, just use caution and be prepared from some truly stupid behaviour.
Myrtone wrote:Have you seriously not heard of the concept of assuming good faith.
Not on the roads mate. Too dangerous.
Key rule to stay alive - assume everyone else is an idiot until they show otherwise. Act accordingly. To take any other approach is to be a complete numpty, and likely a short-lived one.
+1 and I believe my driving instructor told me the same. I've been a commuting cyclist, a postie, an interstate truck driver, a motorcycle courier and a paramedic in my time. Assume the person you are sharing the road with is either an incompetent fool or potential a homicidal maniac in a 1 tonne plus vehicle/weapon. You have a much greater chance of surviving to old age. Doesn't mean you have to behave beligerently on the road towards others, just use caution and be prepared from some truly stupid behaviour.
-1 I do wonder about the sex of the your driving instuctor and how sensitve they are to other emotions and how well they understand, plenty of women work as driving intructors, and they on average are better than men, esecially techincally minded men, at understanding these things. Maybe what the intuctor really wanted you to do is assume that the person sharing the road with you in not acting propely and according to the rules unless they show otherwise, that's not an exucse to assume bad faith. The best thing to do is use caution but always be nice and polite to other road users and respect them for what they are doing. Do not calim they are an idiot unless they are intoxicated and/or have road rage. And I removed the creepy red-marking of the text I quoted.
London Boy wrote:Not on the roads mate. Too dangerous.
Key rule to stay alive - assume everyone else is an idiot until they show otherwise. Act accordingly. To take any other approach is to be a complete numpty, and likely a short-lived one.
+1 and I believe my driving instructor told me the same. I've been a commuting cyclist, a postie, an interstate truck driver, a motorcycle courier and a paramedic in my time. Assume the person you are sharing the road with is either an incompetent fool or potential a homicidal maniac in a 1 tonne plus vehicle/weapon. You have a much greater chance of surviving to old age. Doesn't mean you have to behave beligerently on the road towards others, just use caution and be prepared from some truly stupid behaviour.
-1 I do wonder about the sex of the your driving instuctor and how sensitve they are to other emotions and how well they understand, plenty of women work as driving intructors, and they on average are better than men, esecially techincally minded men, at understanding these things. Maybe what the intuctor really wanted you to do is assume that the person sharing the road with you in not acting propely and according to the rules unless they show otherwise, that's not an exucse to assume bad faith. The best thing to do is use caution but always be nice and polite to other road users and respect them for what they are doing. Do not calim they are an idiot unless they are intoxicated and/or have road rage. And I removed the creepy red-marking of the text I quoted.
I put it back because it is important, I have seen the direct result (death and serious injury) of incompetence, aggression and idiocy on the roads May you learn that truth without serious consequence to yourself or those you love.
Setting the scene, a beautiful Brisbane Saturday morning, blue sky without any clouds, West End Markets at Davies Park, very cool vibe all around, lots of pedestrian traffic just enjoying the event.
I am just parking my new mountain bike having cycled in from Oxley and then around the city river reaches a bit...when I hear a cycle bell ... bing bing bing bing bing bing bing and it went on... so I looked up to see an older gentleman riding a road bike on a very wide shared concrete path riding behind a couple of pedestrians who were walking side by side .. and more bing bing bing bing bing until someone from somewhere yells out "just go around them mate".
The cyclist had enough room to travel onto the right hand side of the path and ride around them, however I believe he was trying to assert it was his right to sit behind them binging his bell until they stopped walking side by side and walked in single file so that he could pass them while staying on the left hand side of the path ..... very poor form .... he eventually did go around them on the right hand side.
As often said on these forums, there is enough mud thrown the way of cyclists, we don't need individuals acting like prats adding to the mix of antagonism.
Myrtone wrote:The reason for the poor spelling and grammar is that it is really hard to deal with your insitance on assuming bad faith.
Oh, dear. Tell me I didn't just read that
Folks, we've got a live one here No hope of reasoned discussion with any connection with actual reality. Have it your way then. On the ignore list you go, Myrtone.
"People have a right to their own opinions, but not their own facts. Evidence must be located, not created, and opinions not backed by evidence cannot be given much weight." -- James W Loewen
Myrtone wrote:One can be set up for an emergency brake and still that assume they didn't want to hit you, either way the result of being set up is the same. Conversingly one may suddenly to do an emergency brake and assume they didn't care whether they hit you, that does not change the result of the latter.
Oh I see. You assume.. I should assume they are stupid rather than evil. As if I care about their intention rather than its consequences. (snicker... as if) But you see the thing is.. I can sort of understand evil. Stupid has no excuse. Absolutely none in my world. So I prefer to think of their attempted homicide as evil as its the lesser insult. And of course.. they need to be negated as a threat regardless.
trailgumby wrote:Folks, we've got a live one here No hope of reasoned discussion with any connection with actual reality. Have it your way then. On the ignore list you go, Myrtone.
No it's you folks that need a reality check, you need counciling. You are the ones who are not having a reasoned dicussion.
Percrime wrote:Oh I see. You assume.. I should assume they are stupid rather than evil. As if I care about their intention rather than its consequences. (snicker... as if) But you see the thing is.. I can sort of understand evil. Stupid has no excuse. Absolutely none in my world. So I prefer to think of their attempted homicide as evil as its the lesser insult. And of course.. they need to be negated as a threat regardless.
Evil is no better than stupid, and yet the latter implies lack of intelligence. You need to stop assuming that the cyclist in question was attempting homocide (as calling them an idiot seems to imply), you do not have any evidence to support such a bad belief. If that "polka" cyclist were reading this discussion (this is a public forum) they will almost certainly get very upset that you aren't just forgiving them for their mistake.
Myrtone, please let this go. Let us agree to disagree and get on with telling stories of cyclists and pedestrians doing things that they probably wouldn't if they had properly thought things through.
EDIT: eg: clip I just found of a moment a few pages back.
Last edited by bychosis on Sun Apr 21, 2013 5:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
bychosis (bahy-koh-sis): A mental disorder characterised by symptoms, such as delusions or hallucinations, that indicate impaired contact with reality not containing bicycles.
Ranga Tang wrote:Just calling it as it was. If it was a bogan wearing trackies, I would have wrote that too.
Funnily enough, all the cyclists that hammered past us (but not as close as him), were in fact clad in similar attire.
Everyone else who approached us from behind in shorts/trackies etc, either slowed down or yelled out they were coming through.
Just sayin' ........
Summernight wrote:Oooo. I've never been to a spoke removal party. Sounds like fun.
Yeah. Had to go to one of those once when I was on rollerblades and was body slammed from behind. I rode/skated home..... not a story proud of though, long, long time ago
Funnily enough, I sometimes pass people in shorts, trackies etc who don't want to hear or know that people are passing them. What should we do with those? A spoke removal party for them too?
Or a lets all take a few deep breaths, not stereotype and calm down party. Not everyone is the same way as you portray them. Whenever I see children on a bike, I slow down. Unless of course it is one particular rider who is always out with his young kids... These particular youngsters appear to be better on their bikes than many adults and teenagers.
My approach is to assume other riders I don't know or pedestrians are going to do something crazy. It prevents accidents. When you are riding with people you know, you don't need to worry quite as much - but you still have to be mindful. (that last bit is the disclaimer for the forum pedants).
Driving along Riverside Drv I see a cyclist doing 35-40kph no issues as by himself, a bit further on tho I'm puzzled. I'm seeing what appears to be a back, and a front wheel. Get closer and it was a teen on a bmx sitting on the handlebars facing backwards and looking behind himself to steer whilst doing 15-20kph. He was riding with 2 others.. No helmet ofc
Cyclist salmoning along Kororoit Creek Rd Williamstown sans helmet. Problem is the car in front of me was a paddy wagon - pulled said salmon over for a chat. I suspect this is one cyclist who will learn the hard way.
Nemo me impune lacessit
iPhone - Nature's enemy to the bicycle bell Airzound - Nature's enemy to the iPhone
Cowcorner wrote:Cyclist salmoning along Kororoit Creek Rd Williamstown sans helmet. Problem is the car in front of me was a paddy wagon - pulled said salmon over for a chat. I suspect this is one cyclist who will learn the hard way.
these are the same type of people who think cyclists don't belong on the roads and don't understand why they should follow the 'car' rules
Couple of ninja cyclists tonight in the dark. Both of them in fairly dark clothes too. Neither of them had lights. They were riding together. And a few pedestrians in dark clothes too. Always a bad thing in areas where there are no other lights.
g-boaf wrote:Couple of ninja cyclists tonight in the dark. Both of them in fairly dark clothes too. Neither of them had lights. They were riding together. And a few pedestrians in dark clothes too. Always a bad thing in areas where there are no other lights.
I nearly ran over 4 emo teenagers 1 night who were sitting on the bikepath around a bend in a dark park. The only thing that saved them was the glow of their cigarettes.
