Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am not saying make yourself or your children unsafe to let a stranger merge on a highway quicker. I am saying when given the opportunity, you should help someone else out...
Than we are in perfect agreement... I'm happy to move over and let you merge when it's safe.
But your children are just "strangers" to other people. So if you don't mind endangering strangers, why should they mind endangering your children?
Quote:
People like me are able to exist because people like you exist.
Yes, if most people were not willing to behave in a socially cooperative way, free-riders like you couldn't exist.
Quote:
Those who will gladly sacrifice their own family's interests in the name of some vague, nebulous, theoretical appeal to "long term societal interests".
The reasons behind particular rules shouldn't be vague, nebulous, or theoretical. In this case, the reason older children and adults are required to ride on streets is that it is safer for the bike riders, and also safer for pedestrians.
Quote:
Well....good luck with all of that. My kids will not ride their bikes on the street. I couldn't care less if it's in the long term interest of society or not.
Again, to make this more concrete, once your kids are older and riding outside a limited range, it will be both less safe for them and less safe for pedestrians, including other people's children, for them to ride on sidewalks.
But maybe some other parent will decide to protect their pedestrian children by just knocking your children off their bikes if they are spotted riding on sidewalks. I mean, why should that other parent care about your children's safety? Your children would just be strangers to that parent, and anything that parent might do to protect his or her children is OK as long as it just hurts strangers, right?
My kids will ride where it is safest for them....Under no circumstances will I make them less safe for the benefit of strangers.
I think most people would agree that in a certain-death (or certain-equivalent-injury) situation, they'd make the same choice. But do you really mean by this that, say, you'd choose to spare your kid from a bump or a bruise if it meant someone else would break an arm or get permanently injured, or worse? That seems to me to be a strange and somewhat warped line of thinking. But if not, well, then you're willing to make them less safe for the benefit of strangers.
Anyhow, as others have pointed out, statistically speaking cyclists are quite a bit less safe on the sidewalks than on the street, so it's not like you or your kids are actually riding in the safest place... and that makes the whole debate somewhat moot.
I think most people would agree that in a certain-death (or certain-equivalent-injury) situation, they'd make the same choice. But do you really mean by this that, say, you'd choose to spare your kid from a bump or a bruise if it meant someone else would break an arm or get permanently injured, or worse? That seems to me to be a strange and somewhat warped line of thinking. But if not, well, then you're willing to make them less safe for the benefit of strangers.
That's an imaginary situation. What? the tooth fairy comes and says: "I'll take away your kids injury if jcsinpgh dies"....that's not real. Ask me a real situation and I'll give you a real answer. Or better yet... I'll give you a real situation. A few weeks ago my kid fell and busted his/her head open....he/she started screaming....it ripped my heart out. I would much rather have seen my neighbor screaming than my kid.....does that make me a bad person....or just honest?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcsinpgh
Anyhow, as others have pointed out, statistically speaking cyclists are quite a bit less safe on the sidewalks than on the street, so it's not like you or your kids are actually riding in the safest place... and that makes the whole debate somewhat moot.
But that's what started this whole discussion. I say the sidewalk is only dangerous for bicyclists not paying attention. So what that study really says is: Most bicyclists do not pay attention...if your going to ride a bike and not pay attention you are better off on the street.
I say if my children pay attention then this study is moot.
Ask me a real situation and I'll give you a real answer.
OK--your kid's friend with the bee-sting allergy comes over to spend the night. A bee gets in the room where they're sleeping. Should your kid step on the bee/squash the bee with his hand, thus making it very likely that he'll get stung himself, so he can guarantee that his friend won't get stung?
Or, your kid is in his late teens, and he sees the neighbor's toddler chasing a ball into the street, in the path of an oncoming car. It would almost definitely crush the toddler, but if your kid intervenes he would probably get away with a few broken bones or some big, painful, nasty bruises. Should he run into the street and push the kid out of the way?
What this has to do with biking at this point I have no idea. But my point is that although I want my kid to grow up with a reasonable concern for his own self-interest, I want him to be able to weigh his needs responsibly with those of others. I think most people would agree that in the situations above they would want their kids to take the lumps, even if it's "not do(ing) everything in your power to protect your children" or "put(ting) a stranger's interests above a loved one's interest."
And to bring this back to cycling, has anyone else seen this?:
But your children are just "strangers" to other people. So if you don't mind endangering strangers, why should they mind endangering your children?
Yes, if most people were not willing to behave in a socially cooperative way, free-riders like you couldn't exist.
Yea...and if the queen had balls she'd be king.
If you want, we can talk about this mythical imagination-land where everyone is a free-rider. I would prefer to talk about the real-world where the majority of the unwashed masses will always do exactly what they are told. Most of them don't seem to mind having their entire life completely and utterly under the control of other people, whether it's in their own family's interests or not....Stay of the grass....if you break it you brought it.....line starts here....wake up....go to bed....laugh where the laugh-track tells you to....eat lunch now....work harder for less money...
In the real-world there will always be people who are able to transcend the system (you call them free-riders). I understand that they are usually very powerful or very poor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
The reasons behind particular rules shouldn't be vague, nebulous, or theoretical. In this case, the reason older children and adults are required to ride on streets is that it is safer for the bike riders, and also safer for pedestrians.
That is a statistical truth, meaning it's true on average over large numbers of people.....But statistical truths DO NOT apply to individual situations.
Statistically you are more likely to die in a car accident than by a handgun, but lets say you take the bus to work and live in Homewood next to a crack house. Your individual situation does not apply to the global average. Similarly, as long as my children are conscientious riders and pay attention to alleys, intersections, and driveways....than the study is not applicable to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
Again, to make this more concrete, once your kids are older and riding outside a limited range, it will be both less safe for them and less safe for pedestrians, including other people's children, for them to ride on sidewalks.
Bicyclers get hit and die on the street.....I love my children.....therefore they will ride on the sidewalk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
But maybe some other parent will decide to protect their pedestrian children by just knocking your children off their bikes if they are spotted riding on sidewalks. I mean, why should that other parent care about your children's safety? Your children would just be strangers to that parent, and anything that parent might do to protect his or her children is OK as long as it just hurts strangers, right?
Again....that's not reality....you're talking about some fantasy world that doesn't exist. In the real world, many of you will be on the street, my kids will be on the sidewalk, and no one will push my kids off of their bikes.
OK--your kid's friend with the bee-sting allergy comes over to spend the night. A bee gets in the room where they're sleeping. Should your kid step on the bee/squash the bee with his hand, thus making it very likely that he'll get stung himself, so he can guarantee that his friend won't get stung?
Well of course, I don't want my kids friend to be hospitalized to avoid a measly bee sting.... that's not really hurting my soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcsinpgh
Or, your kid is in his late teens, and he sees the neighbor's toddler chasing a ball into the street, in the path of an oncoming car. It would almost definitely crush the toddler, but if your kid intervenes he would probably get away with a few broken bones or some big, painful, nasty bruises. Should he run into the street and push the kid out of the way?
Wow...much tougher. Personally, I would try to save the toddler. It's almost instinctively impossible not to... As for my teenager, I would tell him/her to follow their gut and I wouldn't judge either way. And that's kinda my point... I will always support and protect my family first. If they leave the toddler, my first job is to tend to their emotional well being, if they rescue the toddler my first job is to tend to their physical well being.
I understand that they are usually very powerful or very poor.
No, a lot of them are just petty rulebreakers (because you can be both a free-rider and risk averse). These people may end up with fairly typical lives, with just a few subtle negative consequences. For example, these people tend to overlook that it is actually hard to hide a disregard for the well-being of others, and this can cause other people to be less than helpful in return. But people like this may not even understand there are such consequences to their behavior.
Incidentally, of course not all social norms are good. But some are, and the general idea of civil society is a good one, even if it can and does go wrong in specific cases--and very rarely are traffic rules an example of bad social norms.
Quote:
That is a statistical truth, meaning it's true on average over large numbers of people.....But statistical truths DO NOT apply to individual situations.
Well-confirmed statistics also tend to apply pretty well to repeated situations. So, for example, if you drive drunk once, you may or may not get into a car accident that particular time. Or the next. Or the next. But if you make a habit of driving drunk, your odds of getting in an accident sooner or later go way up.
This, by the way, explains a lot of risky patterns of behavior: nothing happens the first time, or the first several times, so the person becomes convinced that regardless of what the statistics say, he or she is an exception. For example, many people will tell you they are exceptionally careful when driving drunk, and therefore if anything are safer in that condition than most drivers are normally. What they don't understand is that everyone else is trying to be careful too when driving drunk, and so the statistics actually demonstrate that isn't enough.
Generally, it is rarely the case people truly are exceptionally good at avoiding risks--pretty much by definition, of course. And all too often, these delusions put other people at risk as well.
Quote:
Similarly, as long as my children are conscientious riders and pay attention to alleys, intersections, and driveways....than the study is not applicable to them.
Again, this is the same sort of logic which people use to convince themselves it is OK to drive drunk as long as they are really careful about it.
Quote:
Bicyclers get hit and die on the street.....I love my children.....therefore they will ride on the sidewalk.
Bicylists get hit and die on sidewalks, and at a far higher rate than on streets. I am saddened you just can't understand that relying on your children to somehow beat the odds isn't a good idea for them.
Quote:
Again....that's not reality....you're talking about some fantasy world that doesn't exist. In the real world, many of you will be on the street, my kids will be on the sidewalk, and no one will push my kids off of their bikes.
One of the many real world versions of this is the drunk driver who thinks it is really important he gets home to his family, thinks the odds don't apply to him because he resolves to be very careful, and then hits your car and kills himself, you, and your child. It has all the elements--a delusion of being able to beat the odds, a disregard for the safety of others in the name of being a good family man, and so on.
And taken to the extreme, another real world version of this is the person who kidnaps, rapes, and kills your child, just for the pleasure of it. Now it is missing the element of nominally doing this for the benefit of someone else, but once you start thinking that what happens to strangers doesn't matter, it is hard to see where to stop.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But my point is that although I want my kid to grow up with a reasonable concern for his own self-interest, I want him to be able to weigh his needs responsibly with those of others. I think most people would agree that in the situations above they would want their kids to take the lumps, even if it's "not do(ing) everything in your power to protect your children" or "put(ting) a stranger's interests above a loved one's interest." 
