F
Rich wrote:
> Neil Brooks wrote:
>
> > In trying to prepare to do better next time, though, I'm realizing
> > just how mission critical it is to--as John Forester has always
> > said--"act and be treated as a driver of a vehicle."
>
> You may have the power to act as a driver of a vehicle, but
unfortunatly
> it's not within your power to be treated as a driver of a vehicle;
that
> power lies with those doing the treating. And even drivers of
vehicles
> are sometimes hit by other drivers.
This is true. Nothing's 100% reliable.
>
> > In other words, I was reluctant to "take the lane" because it was a
> > less-than-bike-friendly area. That was my fault, either for
cycling
> > in such an area in the first place, or for failing to resolve that
> > reluctance and take the darned lane regardless.
>
> While I'm all for learning from bad experiences, it appears to me
this
> was just a stroke of bad luck. I think you did what you were
supposed
> to; sometimes things just don't go your way.
This is false. While I sympathize, Neil did not do what he was
supposed to do!
>
> When something bad happens, it's easy to second guess your actions.
But
> maybe if you had "taken the lane" you'd have been mowed down by an 18
> wheeler.
I disagree.
The idea behind taking the lane is that there's much less risk of being
deliberately hit by a motorist (whether in a Geo Metro or an 18
wheeler) than by an opening door. The entire idea between riding in
the door zone is that there's less risk to the opening door.
The latter idea is simply wrong. Percentage-wise, you're odds are a
lot better away from the doors.
I think that if you portray these as equal risks, you'll be inviting
lots more people to make the mistake Neil made. We don't need more
dinged-up $6000 bikes!
Again, I feel sorry for Neil. I'm glad he's OK, and I hope his bike is
perfectly repairable. But he did make a mistake, one we can learn from.
> Neil Brooks wrote:
>
> > In trying to prepare to do better next time, though, I'm realizing
> > just how mission critical it is to--as John Forester has always
> > said--"act and be treated as a driver of a vehicle."
>
> You may have the power to act as a driver of a vehicle, but
unfortunatly
> it's not within your power to be treated as a driver of a vehicle;
that
> power lies with those doing the treating. And even drivers of
vehicles
> are sometimes hit by other drivers.
This is true. Nothing's 100% reliable.
>
> > In other words, I was reluctant to "take the lane" because it was a
> > less-than-bike-friendly area. That was my fault, either for
cycling
> > in such an area in the first place, or for failing to resolve that
> > reluctance and take the darned lane regardless.
>
> While I'm all for learning from bad experiences, it appears to me
this
> was just a stroke of bad luck. I think you did what you were
supposed
> to; sometimes things just don't go your way.
This is false. While I sympathize, Neil did not do what he was
supposed to do!
>
> When something bad happens, it's easy to second guess your actions.
But
> maybe if you had "taken the lane" you'd have been mowed down by an 18
> wheeler.
I disagree.
The idea behind taking the lane is that there's much less risk of being
deliberately hit by a motorist (whether in a Geo Metro or an 18
wheeler) than by an opening door. The entire idea between riding in
the door zone is that there's less risk to the opening door.
The latter idea is simply wrong. Percentage-wise, you're odds are a
lot better away from the doors.
I think that if you portray these as equal risks, you'll be inviting
lots more people to make the mistake Neil made. We don't need more
dinged-up $6000 bikes!
Again, I feel sorry for Neil. I'm glad he's OK, and I hope his bike is
perfectly repairable. But he did make a mistake, one we can learn from.
