Bicyclist pulled over for running a red light

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Please share such statistics. In any case, it doesn't matter because they are not 0%. It takes one case to injure someone, to incapacitate another human being because of your ignorance and disregard for others. But clearly you are very set in your ways. In fact I think you must be pretty smug about your "green lifestyle" and your endless rants against aggressive drivers, while you're just one of them, except worse. You're just a douche who thinks too highly of yourself. Done with you now.

Not who you're responding to, but I have a question. Accepting your premise for the moment, I'm at a loss to understand how an aggressive cyclist is "worse" than an aggressive driver. Isn't a car significantly more dangerous to others in a crash than a bike?

The "worse" part comes from that poster's feeling that cyclists are superior no matter what and can do no harm. So cyclists who are aggressive AND have this attitude are actually worse than simply "aggressive" drivers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Please share such statistics. In any case, it doesn't matter because they are not 0%. It takes one case to injure someone, to incapacitate another human being because of your ignorance and disregard for others. But clearly you are very set in your ways. In fact I think you must be pretty smug about your "green lifestyle" and your endless rants against aggressive drivers, while you're just one of them, except worse. You're just a douche who thinks too highly of yourself. Done with you now.

Not who you're responding to, but I have a question. Accepting your premise for the moment, I'm at a loss to understand how an aggressive cyclist is "worse" than an aggressive driver. Isn't a car significantly more dangerous to others in a crash than a bike?

Sure a car driven by an aggressive driver is more dangerous. However a bicycle ridden by an aggressive cyclist is not NOT dangerous.

An aggressive roller-blader can also be not NOT dangerous, if he were out-of-control and carrying a flaming cinder-block. I don't spend my nights lying awake worrying about it though.

Sorry I forgot you think you are perfect... and that is why you ARE a dangerous douche.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Please share such statistics. In any case, it doesn't matter because they are not 0%. It takes one case to injure someone, to incapacitate another human being because of your ignorance and disregard for others. But clearly you are very set in your ways. In fact I think you must be pretty smug about your "green lifestyle" and your endless rants against aggressive drivers, while you're just one of them, except worse. You're just a douche who thinks too highly of yourself. Done with you now.

Not who you're responding to, but I have a question. Accepting your premise for the moment, I'm at a loss to understand how an aggressive cyclist is "worse" than an aggressive driver. Isn't a car significantly more dangerous to others in a crash than a bike?

The "worse" part comes from that poster's feeling that cyclists are superior no matter what and can do no harm. So cyclists who are aggressive AND have this attitude are actually worse than simply "aggressive" drivers.

Exactly! It's all about the fundamental attribution error:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

You pass a cyclist just a little too close, don't even notice it, but he ends up shouting at you and giving you the finger. Why did he do that? He must be an entitled, aggressive, arrogant asshole who hates you because you're not green enough. (Or it might be that someone in an SUV almost ran him over by passing too close and cutting in front of him for a right-hand turn 30 seconds earlier.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Please share such statistics. In any case, it doesn't matter because they are not 0%. It takes one case to injure someone, to incapacitate another human being because of your ignorance and disregard for others. But clearly you are very set in your ways. In fact I think you must be pretty smug about your "green lifestyle" and your endless rants against aggressive drivers, while you're just one of them, except worse. You're just a douche who thinks too highly of yourself. Done with you now.

Not who you're responding to, but I have a question. Accepting your premise for the moment, I'm at a loss to understand how an aggressive cyclist is "worse" than an aggressive driver. Isn't a car significantly more dangerous to others in a crash than a bike?

Sure a car driven by an aggressive driver is more dangerous. However a bicycle ridden by an aggressive cyclist is not NOT dangerous.

An aggressive roller-blader can also be not NOT dangerous, if he were out-of-control and carrying a flaming cinder-block. I don't spend my nights lying awake worrying about it though.

Sorry I forgot you think you are perfect... and that is why you ARE a dangerous douche.

You seem upset. Why don't you have a nice glass of iced tea and re-read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Please share such statistics. In any case, it doesn't matter because they are not 0%. It takes one case to injure someone, to incapacitate another human being because of your ignorance and disregard for others. But clearly you are very set in your ways. In fact I think you must be pretty smug about your "green lifestyle" and your endless rants against aggressive drivers, while you're just one of them, except worse. You're just a douche who thinks too highly of yourself. Done with you now.

Not who you're responding to, but I have a question. Accepting your premise for the moment, I'm at a loss to understand how an aggressive cyclist is "worse" than an aggressive driver. Isn't a car significantly more dangerous to others in a crash than a bike?

Sure a car driven by an aggressive driver is more dangerous. However a bicycle ridden by an aggressive cyclist is not NOT dangerous.

An aggressive roller-blader can also be not NOT dangerous, if he were out-of-control and carrying a flaming cinder-block. I don't spend my nights lying awake worrying about it though.

Sorry I forgot you think you are perfect... and that is why you ARE a dangerous douche.

You seem upset. Why don't you have a nice glass of iced tea and re-read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

and you need to read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:an agressive roller-blader can also be not NOT dangerous, if he were out-of-control and carrying a flaming cinder-block. I don't spend my nights lying awake worrying about it though.

Sorry I forgot you think you are perfect... and that is why you ARE a dangerous douche.

You seem upset. Why don't you have a nice glass of iced tea and re-read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

and you need to read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial

Denali's not just a mountain in Alaska.

[Anonymous]

A'ight. For the record, I'm a bike commuter of 20 years standing, and I think it's a good thing the biker got pulled over for running the red. It's stupid and dangerous.

So there's my anonymous internet $.02.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A'ight. For the record, I'm a bike commuter of 20 years standing, and I think it's a good thing the biker got pulled over for running the red. It's stupid and dangerous.

So there's my anonymous internet $.02.

And I respect you because you sound like a rational and respectful bike rider. Keep on cycling!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Please share such statistics. In any case, it doesn't matter because they are not 0%. It takes one case to injure someone, to incapacitate another human being because of your ignorance and disregard for others. But clearly you are very set in your ways. In fact I think you must be pretty smug about your "green lifestyle" and your endless rants against aggressive drivers, while you're just one of them, except worse. You're just a douche who thinks too highly of yourself. Done with you now.

Not who you're responding to, but I have a question. Accepting your premise for the moment, I'm at a loss to understand how an aggressive cyclist is "worse" than an aggressive driver. Isn't a car significantly more dangerous to others in a crash than a bike?

Sure a car driven by an aggressive driver is more dangerous. However a bicycle ridden by an aggressive cyclist is not NOT dangerous.

An aggressive roller-blader can also be not NOT dangerous, if he were out-of-control and carrying a flaming cinder-block. I don't spend my nights lying awake worrying about it though.

You also sound like the type that if you got hit while running the red on your $4000 bike riding to work would blame the car driver for not looking out for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A'ight. For the record, I'm a bike commuter of 20 years standing, and I think it's a good thing the biker got pulled over for running the red. It's stupid and dangerous.

So there's my anonymous internet $.02.

Other 20 year commuter here: I disagree with you, but respect you're entitled to your own opinion. Have a good ride home!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You also sound like the type that if you got hit while running the red on your $4000 bike riding to work would blame the car driver for not looking out for you.

I'll let you know if it ever happens. Twenty years and no close calls though. You can always hope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You also sound like the type that if you got hit while running the red on your $4000 bike riding to work would blame the car driver for not looking out for you.

I'll let you know if it ever happens. Twenty years and no close calls though. You can always hope.

I would never hope that someone gets hit.

However if you put yourself in dangerous situations then don't blame others when dangerous things happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You also sound like the type that if you got hit while running the red on your $4000 bike riding to work would blame the car driver for not looking out for you.

I'll let you know if it ever happens. Twenty years and no close calls though. You can always hope.

I would never hope that someone gets hit.

However if you put yourself in dangerous situations then don't blame others when dangerous things happen.

You're begging the question: it only appears dangerous to those who don't ride, and have no experience doing so. If it were dangerous, statistics would bear it out. They don't. It isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anyway, for the statistics, a national overview:

"Though the number of pedestrian fatalities fell from 5,228 in 1998 to 4,092 in 2009, there were 59,000 reported pedestrian injuries in 2009, nearly one every 9 minutes. Pedestrian injuries have been on a downward trend for the past two decades, with 59,000 reported injuries in 2009 representing a decrease of 10,000 reported injuries since 1998. However, we know from research into hospital records that only a fraction of pedestrian crashes that cause injury are ever recorded by the police."

(http://www.walkinginfo.org/facts/facts.cfm)

Meanwhile, as far as DC goes, here's the breakdown:

http://www.dc.gov/DC/DDOT/On+Your+Street/Safety/Crash+Reports/Traffic+Safety+Report+Statistics+(2007-2009)

You'll notice there's no separate break-out for bicycle/pedestrian collisions with either injury or fatality. There's also no separate section for "falling out of tree", "piano falling on head", "died of boredom", or other vanishingly improbable scenarios. Do cyclists occasionally strike a pedestrian? Of course. Probably at the same rate that pedestrians walk into the path of a bicycle. Is it a fun experience for either party? No. Is it one of the great public health concerns of our time? I think the numbers speak for themselves.

Both your sources are exclusively about motor vehicle crashes, so it's not really surprising they don't report bicycle-pedestrian crashes. Fail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anyway, for the statistics, a national overview:

"Though the number of pedestrian fatalities fell from 5,228 in 1998 to 4,092 in 2009, there were 59,000 reported pedestrian injuries in 2009, nearly one every 9 minutes. Pedestrian injuries have been on a downward trend for the past two decades, with 59,000 reported injuries in 2009 representing a decrease of 10,000 reported injuries since 1998. However, we know from research into hospital records that only a fraction of pedestrian crashes that cause injury are ever recorded by the police."

(http://www.walkinginfo.org/facts/facts.cfm)

Meanwhile, as far as DC goes, here's the breakdown:

http://www.dc.gov/DC/DDOT/On+Your+Street/Safety/Crash+Reports/Traffic+Safety+Report+Statistics+(2007-2009)

You'll notice there's no separate break-out for bicycle/pedestrian collisions with either injury or fatality. There's also no separate section for "falling out of tree", "piano falling on head", "died of boredom", or other vanishingly improbable scenarios. Do cyclists occasionally strike a pedestrian? Of course. Probably at the same rate that pedestrians walk into the path of a bicycle. Is it a fun experience for either party? No. Is it one of the great public health concerns of our time? I think the numbers speak for themselves.

Both your sources are exclusively about motor vehicle crashes, so it's not really surprising they don't report bicycle-pedestrian crashes. Fail.

They also don't report kite-pedestrian crashes. The numbers are so low as to be insignificant. Win.