[BIKE: Relevant to recent discussions]

[Michael Bluejay]

On Apr 29, 2004, at 4:27 PM, Mike Dahmus wrote:

> I don't know how much more clear I could have made this to Michael and 
> Patrick. You did a good job, but I bet it still fails to penetrate.

Hey, Mike, would you mind talking about me as though I'm something 
other than a complete idiot?  My IQ is 145 and I've never been mistaken 
for thick, except perhaps on this forum.  I understand what you're 
saying, I just disagree.


> The cyclists who run stop signs and red lights in unsafe conditions 
> DO, IN FACT, think they're safe. Even the ones who we know AREN'T 
> safe.

Whoa, wait a minute here, this is a serious contradiction to what 
you've been saying.  You've maintained that (1) It's dangerous to run 
stop signs and red lights EVERY TIME, and (2) because unsafe cyclists 
thought they were safe, that *none* of us scofflaws are safe, and if we 
think we are then we're just stupid.  But in your comment above by 
saying "even the ones we know AREN'T safe", you're intimating that only 
SOME are unsafe while others ARE safe!  So which is it, Mike?  Are we 
all 100% unilaterally unsafe as you've been claiming all along, or is 
it the case that some break laws safely while others break laws 
unsafely?  Whichever answer you give, please explain why you also made 
the opposite position.


> The guy who nearly made me wreck my car never saw me (and never saw me 
> afterwards; as I noted, I didn't honk because I was trying not to 
> wreck). I'll bet that if asked, he thinks he never unsafely ran a red 
> light, just like Patrick and Michael claim.

Just for the hell of it, last night when I came to a red light at a 
deserted intersection, instead of simply checking the traffic and then 
running the light, I waited a good 30 seconds, leaning on my 
handlebars, just staring down the 1/8th mile of empty roadway on the 
cross street.  I conservatively estimate that a car appearing at the 
limit of my visibility would have to be traveling at least 450 miles an 
hour to hit me.  It made Mike's claim that I'm always unsafe seem even 
more absurd than usual.

Mike keeps bringing up the example of this cyclist he almost hit as 
though he's dropped this huge bombshell -- that the other cyclist 
thought he was safe but was wrong, therefore all cyclists who think 
they're safe must be equally wrong.  This is so patently ridiculous 
that one hardly knows how to respond.  Suffice it to say that Mike must 
have no idea what Patrick and I are talking about when we talk about 
going through intersections SAFELY, because the near-miss that Mike 
experienced is JUST NOT POSSIBLE if you cross the way we cross.  I 
cross only when I *can't* be hit by cross-traffic.  Usually I extend 
that to be that I can't be hit by cross-traffic *even if they're 
trying*.  Maybe it sounds crazy, but I still maintain that it's very 
hard to be hit by a non-existent car.  That's just me, I guess.

> There is no doubt in my mind that every cyclist who ran a red light or 
> a stop sign and got squashed for the privilege did so successfully 
> many times before Darwin finally caught up with him. Until that point, 
> they were, if so inclined, likely claiming that the worst-case 
> scenario would never happen to them, because they always 'safely' ran 
> their red lights and stop signs.

There you go again, saying that I'm so stupid that I'm a candidate for 
Darwinian-style self-selection.  Let's take this back a step:  For 
running red lights, let's consider the principle of a Stop sign, that 
it is possible for one to stop, determine when it's safe to proceed, 
and then do so.  You evidently believe in this principle.  Okay, so why 
is it when the traffic control device is a light instead of a sign, I 
MAGICALLY LOSE my ability to come to a complete stop and determine when 
it's safe to proceed?  And that if I think I can do so then I'm just 
misguided and stupid?  How is it that that incandescent bulb 
fundamentally changes the nature of the universe so the simple ability 
I used to have is now impossible for me?


> Since most drivers come to a very slow "rolling stop", I find it 
> reasonable for cyclists to do so as well. A complete foot-down stop is 
> not required if you will then have the right-of-way.
>
> However, that's not what we've been talking about here; we've been 
> talking about barely slowing down.

WHOA!  Who hasn't been paying attention NOW?!  I ought to rest my case 
here!

But there's too much good fodder here to stop now.  So with this newest 
revelation, let's compile Mike's positions:

(1a) Everyone must obey the law because the law is important.
(1b) Except that motorists can "run the orange" because that's not as 
bad as other infractions.  And because motorists can do it, I guess 
cyclists can do it too.

(2a) It is ALWAYS dangerous to run red lights and stop signs.
(2b) Unless the cyclist comes to a "rolling stop" before running the 
stop sign, then it's okay to run a stop sign.

(3a) Running red lights and stop signs is always unsafe.  The fact that 
some people who do this and think they're being safe really aren't 
safe, means that everyone who does it is similarly misguided and 
stupid.
(3b) Except maybe some people are safe, since I referred to "the ones 
who aren't".

(4a) Stopping or doing a rolling stop before running a sign is safe.
(4b) Going any faster than that is completely unsafe, to the point that 
anyone who does so is a candidate for Darwinian-style self-selection.  
There is no gray area; we go from "completely safe" to "completely 
unsafe" as the cyclist's speed through an intersection increases just 
slightly.

(5a) My arguments apply to all that B.S. that Bluejay spouts.
(5b) Except that they don't apply because I was talking about barely 
slowing down before going through an intersection [which Bluejay has 
never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever suggested 
was a safe tactic].


> (In the case of a red light, I do in fact expect a foot-down stop 
> until the light turns green, unless it is clear the light will not 
> turn green due to it being on a trigger-only cycle that does not sense 
> bicycles. However, this does not lessen the obligation to come to a 
> stop first; demonstrating obedience to the most important traffic 
> signal there is to anybody who might be nearby watching. To say 
> nothing of the fact that anybody who blows such a red light without 
> looking incredibly carefully, necessitating the stop, is an idiot).

Looks like we have to add one more:

(6a) Running red lights is always unsafe.
(6b) Except it's not unsafe if the light doesn't sense bicyclists.  
Then it becomes magically safe to run that particular red light.


> Likewise, since many drivers "run the orange", I'm not getting upset 
> at the bicyclists who do the same.

Oh, that's so generous of you.  We're allowed to break the same laws 
that motorists break.  What a privilege!  It's so nice that we can let 
motorists determine for us which laws are acceptable to break and which 
are not.

> It's a matter of fact, however, that the lawbreaking of cyclists is of 
> a different caliber than that of motorists. Despite what you've heard 
> here, motorists simply DON'T run red lights in the middle of the 
> cycle. They DON'T ride down the wrong side of the street. Etc.

Not.  I see this nearly every day.

-MBJ-