emperor: (Default)
emperor ([personal profile] emperor) wrote 2009-06-23 05:24 pm (UTC)

This subthread ended badly, but I think I'll approach it again briefly.

You say you are sometimes intimidated by a cyclist appearing from an unexpected direction; I can see that might be alarming (although I have never found myself intimidated by a cyclist whilst driving). I suspect your perceived risk of personal harm is pretty small, though[1] - the most likely outcome is that the cyclist gets it wrong and damages your car. If they then cycle off you are lumbered with paying for your own repairs, with little prospect of getting your money back from the errant cyclist; that sucks. Don't for a moment think I don't disapprove of cyclists who behave like this.

The flip side is that when drivers intimidate cyclists, those cyclists are at real danger of physical injury or even death. In almost all car / cyclist collisions, the cyclist will come off much much worse. In the clear majority of intimidation incidents between motorists and cyclists, the motorist will be the aggressor, and the cyclist will be at the much much greater risk of harm. Incidents where the cyclist is the aggressor are a tiny minority, and the risk to the motorist are much smaller. The differential in power and protection in these incidents and collisions is overwhelming.

I think at this point I segue into the point I made to [livejournal.com profile] amalion below - it's often harmful to bring up the (relatively tiny) risks cyclists pose to motorists in a discussion of the (relatively vast) risks motorists post to cyclists because it's dangerously close to victim-blaming.

[1] statistically your risk of personal harm in these situations must be almost zero

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting