Well, my take on the video was that the biker started out very quickly - 
granted, after the light turned green - and didn't check to his left.  If I 
were that biker, I would (I like to think, anyway) have recognized that I was 
hidden by the bus; and looked to the left as I emerged from behind the 
bus--even though I **should** have been able to assume it was safe.  That's my 
point, and my opinion.  

I ride pretty much every day, in all kinds of weather and have been riding 
bikes in urban settings (including 6 years in NY City) for 40 years.  As an old 
fart, I feel a lot more vulnerable than I used to, and I try to ride 
defensively.  

Harry


----- Original Message -----
From: India Rose Viola <[email protected]>
Date: Saturday, September 26, 2009 1:54 pm
Subject: Re: [Bikies] Comment on the biker hit by legislator who ran the        
red light incident
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]


> After seeing the video taken of the incident,  I don't quite get what 
> we are talking about here. 
> 
> If the cyclist had jumped the gun on the light, or failed to yield to 
> a car running a light that was changing or had just changed to red, I 
> would agree with what Harry is asserting. It doesn't make sense to 
> bike out in front of moving traffic simply because the law says you 
> can.  Of course it is better to be safe than be right (as in correct). 
>  But if you are biking across an intersection well after the light has 
> turned red for cross traffic, there is no way to anticipate a driver 
> so egregiously running the red light.  If as cyclists we were to do 
> this, we wouldn't ever get anywhere- as we would be trying to 
> anticipate any car at any point crossing through an intersection no 
> matter what the traffic signal indicated.  The cyclist in question was 
> hit by a distracted driver who not only broke the rule (running a red 
> light), but did so in a very unpredictable way (long after the light 
> had turned red), and this had harmful consequences.  If the cyclist 
> had chosen to sit at the ro
> adside instead of proceeding toward his destination it is true that he 
> wouldn't have gotten hit.  But I think that is like saying that if you 
> don't ride a bike you can't get hit on a bike.  This wasn't a case of 
> a cyclist asserting their rights; it was a case of a cyclist biking 
> across an intersection in order to get to the other side.  Riding 
> defensively makes sense.  Waiting an interminable amount of time at a 
> green light to see if a car might come blowing through a stop light is 
> utter nonsense.  
> 
> Obviously this is my opinion and not fact.
> 
> -india
> ***********************
> India Viola
> UW-Madison 
> Stretton Lab
> 115 Zoology Research Bldg.
> 1117 W. Johnson St.
> Madison, WI 53706
> 608.262.3336
> ***********************
> 
> "How can we learn from our mistakes if we don't first acknowledge 
> them?" -Anonymous
> 
> "We exist in the bacterial world, not bacteria in ours" -Stuart Levy
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: HARRY W READ <[email protected]>
> Date: Saturday, September 26, 2009 1:28 pm
> Subject: Re: [Bikies] Comment on the biker hit by legislator who ran 
> the   red light incident
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> 
> > Matt, all I was trying to point out is that the cyclist should have 
> 
> > been aware of his situation.  It's true, I don't know if the biker 
> was 
> > thinking "I'm going to assert my rights", but the discussion up to 
> > this point has focused solely on the driver's behavior.  My 
> statement, 
> > "it's not worth being right if it costs you serious injury" is to 
> > provide a counterpoint to the tendency of this forum to focus on 
> > cyclists' rights.  That statement applies to defensive driving as 
> well 
> > and there have been ad campaigns that made that very point ("...he 
> was 
> > in the right; dead right.").  
> > 
> > I think one purpose of Bikies to improve biker safety; I'm all for 
> > bikers asserting their rights, but I think we should do so judiciously.
> > 
> > Harry
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Matt Logan <[email protected]>
> > Date: Saturday, September 26, 2009 9:42 am
> > Subject: Re: [Bikies] Comment on the biker hit by legislator who ran 
> 
> > the red light incident
> > To: Harry Read <[email protected]>
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > 
> > 
> > > The "it's not worth being right" argument is a prime example of how
> > > car-culture orthodoxy distorts discussions about transportation.  
> Unless
> > > there is hard evidence that the bicyclist abandoned all defensive
> > > bicycling in an effort to assert his rights it is inappropriate to 
> make
> > > such a suggestion.  
> > > 
> > > We don't suggest that motorists are asserting their rights to
> > > unencumbered travel when they are involved in a speeding-related crash.
> > > We don't suggest that motorists are asserting their right to drive 
> drunk
> > > in a DUI-related crash.  Why should we assume a bicyclist who 
> makes 
> > a
> > > mistake is asserting their rights?
> > > 
> > > We should just call it like it is in situations like this and 
> point 
> > out
> > > that everyone needs to be aware that large vehicles block 
> > sight-lines 
> > > at
> > > intersections, and to operate their vehicles accordingly.
> > > 
> > > On Fri, 2009-09-25 at 10:52 -0500, Harry Read wrote:
> > > > Watching the bus video of the biker hit by the legislator, my 
> wife 
> > 
> > > > commented that the biker was hidden from the driver's view by 
> the 
> > 
> > > bus - 
> > > > the driver may have calculated that the bus would not be fast 
> off 
> > 
> > > the 
> > > > mark.  This is not to excuse the driver in any way, I just want 
> to 
> > 
> > > offer 
> > > > it as a defensive biking tip.  I'm sure this occurred to many of 
> 
> > > you, 
> > > > but I thought worth saying. It's not worth being in the right if 
> 
> > it 
> > > 
> > > > costs you serious injury, or worse. 
> > > > 
> > > > - Harry
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Bikies mailing list
> > > > [email protected]
> > > > http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
> > > > 
> > > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bikies mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
> _______________________________________________
> Bikies mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org

Reply via email to