[SDCBC] FW: bike safety and good neighbor relations

[Neil Brooks]

--- Serge Issakov <serge at issakov.org> wrote:

> On 10/11/07, Neil Brooks <neil0502 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > And I agree: make it hurt.
> >
> > These are lethal weapons, kids.  Used wisely, they're unlikely to kill.  Used without DUE
> > CARE and attention, they can easily kill.
> >
> > I don't buy into all-or-nothing arguments.  There's ZERO risk that we're aiming for "jet
> fighter
> > or race car driver focus and attention."  Even making that reference, IMO, is letting hundreds
> of
> > thousands of inattentive, and potentially lethal, drivers off the hook.
> 
> Oh, please.  Hyperbole like that, not to mention alleging that motor
> vehicles are "lethal weapons", akin to guns, is not helpful.

Potential to kill is potential to kill.  Lethality IS lethality.  It's anything BUT hyperbole when
the cell phone using driver drifts into my lane and -- but for my hyper-vigilance -- would have
killed me.

> Weapons are things that are specifically designed or used for the
> purpose of causing harm or injury.    Cars are not weapons.
> 
> Cars are personal transportation devices, that, because of the weight
> and potential speed, can be lethal.  Because of these characteristics,
> they can be used as weapons, but so can a fork, or a playing card.

There's an excellent reason that I don't jog on the Boardwalk with a fork in my hand, and why I
don't flip playing cards toward the jugulars of unsuspecting bystanders, but ... that's another
story for another day.

And THAT was simply letting YOU off the hook for actual "hyperbole."  Forks and playing cards? 
Hmmm.

> Anyway, these characteristics call for appropriate caution in their
> use, and appropriate caution when in their vicinity.  Most people who
> are not male and under the age of 20 seem to understand this quite
> well.

We don't drive on the same streets, then.  My experience is VASTLY difference from yours.  While
teens ... of BOTH genders ... may be worse ... "busy" "executives" seem equally lethal, and
equally ubiquitous, to me.

> But the fact is, drivers are human and humans are not perfect
> automatons.  An unrealistic expectation, such as "aiming for 'jet
> fighter or race car driver focus and attention'" in drivers, is
> destined to fail, by definition.    

It was the standard that YOU set out.  I implied that it was ridiculous, but ... that YOU were
creating a false dichotomy ... which, of course, you are:

  - what we have now (dramatic inattention behind the wheel) and 

  - "fighter pilot rapt attention"

That's an all-or-nothing argument to which I simply don't subscribe.

> This is why our legal system only
> punishes when there is actual intent to harm, or gross negligence,
> regardless how tragic the circumstances may be.  This is also why we
> have rules of the road based on generally understood common-sense
> principles, so that they can be followed without having to rely on
> superhuman abilities.

No.  Actually, our legal system ALSO punishes when consequences could have been reasonably
foreseen ... as in ... when one is sending text messages while driving, etc., etc.  Google
"involuntary manslaughter" or "criminal negligence" when you have the time.

No superhuman abilities needed there.  Just a modicum of sacrifice of one's OWN convenience for
the potential safety of others.  That's all.

> The vast, vast majority of drivers doesn't want to hurt anyone, 

When the ones who DO kill, or injure, an innocent person because of their inattention (WITH its
foreseeable attendant consequences), should the family of the victim find solace in the lack of
malicious intent in the one behind the wheel?

I kinda' doubt they would.

> they
> don't want to crash into anyone or anything, they don't even want to
> scratch their cars, or be delayed by having to deal with a crash.  In
> other words, they are already highly motivated to "do the right thing"

Serge?  Are YOU buying this ... cuz I'm not.  "Highly motivated," but not -- as Jim Baross (?)
implied -- QUITE motivated enough to forgo a phone call while driving, for the sake of others'
safety, I guess.

> to avoid collisions.  They are already highly motivated to pay
> attention.  So any additional attention that can be eked out of
> drivers by "making it hurt" is marginal at best.

Agree to disagree.

> Worse, I think all the dubious efforts focused on trying to change the
> behavior of others (motorists) greatly detracts from where actual
> significant improvements can be made in terms of cycling safety:
> changing the behavior of cyclists.

Are we back to all-or-nothing/either-or thinking?  Not my favorite thing.

Reducing the number of landmines in a given area reduces the overall danger for those passing
through.  Training AND landmine reduction are both good things.  It is NOT a zero sum game.

Neil