this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2024
125 points (98.4% liked)
Bicycles
3107 readers
19 users here now
Welcome to !bicycles@lemmy.ca
A place to share our love of all things with two wheels and pedals. This is an inclusive, non-judgemental community. All types of cyclists are accepted here; whether you're a commuter, a roadie, a MTB enthusiast, a fixie freak, a crusty xbiking hoarder, in the middle of an epic across-the-world bicycle tour, or any other type of cyclist!
Community Rules
-
No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
-
Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
-
No porn.
-
No ads / spamming.
-
Ride bikes
Other cycling-related communities
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You can 'go with' whatever you want. You're still assuming from nothing.
Me: Here's my reasoning along with supporting evidence.
You: You're still assuming from nothing.
Referring to a article from 2011 doesn't mean you're arguing with reason. You're using facts from 2 years to assume why the SUV was at fault, while the investigation is still going. You really think you're some sort of Columbo don't you?
You okay, mate? It's not that serious.
IMO, even if the cyclist wasn't "riding safely", the onus of ensuring safe roads should be on the people driving tons of steel at high speeds, as well as the various levels of governments involved in a city's infrastructure. I'm not familiar with the area, but the comment you originally replied to indicates that the infra where the incident happened was bike-friendly (at least for Canadian standards, which are admittedly quite low).
I agree with not jumping to conclusions, but I find odd your decision to jump to the defense of the motorist. No amount of "safe cycling" can protect you from over a ton of metal ramming into you at speed.
(Also, I'm curious as to why you seem to dislike /r/fuckcars. I have a hard time imagining anyone who cycles not being on the fuckcars-bandwagon. I guess people who see cycling purely as a hobby/sport and not a utilitarian means of transportation, because in my experience anyone who cycles around cars long enough usually isn't a fan of them.)
What world do you live in where I jumped to the defense of anyone? I merely made an opposite assumption, to prove either assumption could be right and that we shouldn't assume anything unless we get all the facts.
I hate /r/fuckcars but it's pure reactionary garbage where people who seem to not have cars, shit on people who do. Saying guys with large trucks have small penises or no one should ever own a car for any reason etc. It's childish pure and simple.
I live in a city where we have bike paths nowhere near roads so when I cycle in, or scooter in, it's a non-issue. When I drive, I often see cyclists in the middle of the road as if they were a car so they end up blocking traffic. I can see why people hate on both sides, but I don't subscribe to hating someone for doing something different than me. /r/fuckcars embodies that hate.
Suggesting that the victim riding "unsafely" was the cause for their death and not the person driving the very dangerous vehicle around other humans kinda is defending the motorist, though. Unless the victim suicidally leaped in front of a moving car (which I doubt, but could happen I guess), saying the manner in which the cyclist was riding is relevant at all is a defense of the driver. I agree we shouldn't necessarily say the motorist was driving recklessly without more context, but even if they weren't being reckless you're still defending them.
I agree that some people take the fuckcars rhetoric too far, but have you seen or heard the kinds of things motorists say about cyclists? Check around FB pages local to you for any posts relating to cyclists, and you'll see people unironically wishing they could murder people with their vehicles. Does this justify shitting on everyone who ever uses a car? Of course not, but I think it explains it a bit. It takes a lot of effort to not make it into an "us vs them" thing when the a lot of motorists see a cyclist simply existing as an attack on their person and their lifestyle.
This is an infrastructure issue, not an individual issue. If people are opting to be in the middle of the road rather than a bike lane, then what you have is a bad bike lane, not bad cyclists.
This I completely agree with, the amount of body-shaming I saw on /r/fuckcars was pretty disgusting. I've always been one to shame people for their idiotic actions and decisions (like driving a truck in an urban area) rather than the imagined size of a body part.
No it isn't.
Don't care. Just because some people are assholes, that doesn't give anyone else a green light to also be an asshole.
Still assuming from nothing I see. Calgary has almost 1000km of pristine bike paths that do not interfere with the roads. I use them all the time in the non-winter months and it's truly an amazing system. Why some bikers ride on the road is beyond me unless it's the last 1-2 km of their commute where there are no bike paths which is not what I see.
There's nothing wrong with driving a truck in an urban area.