Hey, there! Log in / Register
When bicyclists turn on each other
By adamg on Wed, 09/24/2008 - 10:02am
The Allston/Brighton Tab reports on a Sept. 18 incident in which one bicyclist who didn't seem to appreciate getting passed by another one sped up to cut the guy off, forcing the guy into two parked cars. But proving karma is a bitch, the alleged rager then flipped over the front of his own bike, requiring a trip to the hospital, the paper reports.
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
reminds me of the fixie trendwhore a few days ago...
...who got really pissed off that I wouldn't run a thin gauntlet between parked cars and slowly moving traffic, on South Huntington. There was barely enough room for my handlebars, but this jerk wanted me out of his way.
No brakes, no gears, no reflectors, no lights, no helmet...and no brains. Lots of names for them: fakengers, missengers, posengers...
Ah, but the trendwhores fill a valuable market niche
Who else would buy up all the garbage 600g deep section rims velocity and weinmann churn out? They even saved manufacturers the trouble of machining a brake track.
Without tight-pantsed wannabes performing this valuable bottom feeding, crap rims would flood OEM markets, forcing off people who just want to ride a bike to parade around on Key-Lime rims.
-Cosmo
http://boston.redfin.com/blog/author/cosmo.catalano
Pretenders meet fenders
Road-kill, statistics, victims, unfixables, speedbumps, ragemagnets, suicyclists ... they'll all be riding "fixed" if they keep it up (as in "I took my dog to the vet ...")
Whatever
Long as you all stay off the goddamn sidewalks and ride in the streets where you belong, I really don't care if the trendies mess up your scene.
expensive
....when they crash and bust open their heads and spend the rest of their lives in a vegetative state, it ultimately raises everyone's healthcare premium... which is why we should let them die...
It's true
Conversely, the morbidly obese, smokers, and drug addicts tend to die far sooner and more quickly, saving millions in health care money. Should not these behaviors be encouraged as well, for the good of all?
-Cosmo
http://boston.redfin.com/blog/author/cosmo.catalano
Absolutely not
During their relatively short existence, they use up considerably more social services than a person living a healthier lifestyle.
Using up 85 years worth of services in 60 years, puts a strain on the system.
care to cite that?
This supports me
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/152930...
-Cosmo
http://boston.redfin.com/blog/author/cosmo.catalano
So much for that...
I was going off of what my intuition told me. Apparently, I reasoned incorrectly.
Touche!
Collateral Damage
Those risk estimates ignore attributable burdens that don't affect the individual in question - these include such diverse costs as the impacts of environmental tobacco smoke and benefits for dependents.
This analysis also fails to use the most recent metrics for evaluating mortality and morbidity effects.
Reductionism begets truthy urban legends, yet again.
Any links?
Do you have any links to articles to support your theory, or should we just believe you because you went to a famous university and use big words?
Its a Living
Disclaimer: SwirlyGrrl oversees a different study using the very same Dutch cohort used for the study that Cosmo cited.
Here's a project I keep getting sucked into that is dedicated to creating a framework for looking at all the costs of disease and early death: Global burden of disease project.
Aside from that,anybody can look at what is and is not included in the things Cosmo referenced. They are looking solely at the costs of morbidity and health care - not at the additional costs of healthy years of life lost.
For example, smokers take themselves out in a decisive fashion, and that can reduce their burdens on the health care system. However, they also create environmental tobacco smoke, known to contribute to such expensive problems as childhood asthma, preterm delivery and low-birth weight, spousal morbidity and mortality, and so on.
A smoker dying early may further result in dependents receiving Social Security payments, life insurance payments, and so on if they were still working when they dropped dead - and dropping dead is what typically drives the lower life expectancy noted in the study. Many smokers, obese people, etc. will live as long as thin ones, but a greater percentage of them will die rather suddenly, and at an early age.
So, can you say that healthcare costs are saved when a fat lazy smoker drops dead? Sure. Can you say that society has saved money? Maybe, but likely not if fat lazy smoker has kids at home and a good insurance policy. This is an ongoing problem with Health Impact Assessment and Risk Assessment: the reduced scope makes doing the study easier, but it can make the results less valuable. This is especially true when we are talking about complex and common things - like smoking, fitness levels, hypertension, etc.
That is why WHO is trying to find good ways to calculate the total costs so that the most extensive (and expensive) risks can be reduced - both here and all over the world.
Externalities
Thanks for the link. It's interesting.
I think what you were looking for was in the study:
It'd be nice to see if anybody does a follow-up study to capture the externalities. There are pros as well as cons, as the costs related to the advanced age mostly attainable by healthy people aren't only medical.
Pop Science
That's a pretty standard sort of "things we didn't/couldn't" measure disclaimer. These guys know enough to think around their work a bit - the people they work under wouldn't let them loose with less.
Unfortunately, PopSci articles and blurbs about "recent research" tend to miss all that fine print. More unfortunately, some researchers never generate that fine print, or their speculations about causal relationships are translated into truth by the press.
And if you think "angels on a head of a pin" is a contentious discussion, come around when health impact assessment folk get to talking about the how you value and calculate the impact (i.e. cost) of all of this. It's what we all yell at each other about after the third or fourth bottle of Tequilla hits the table during dinner for 12.
Studies show experts...
Studies show all kinds of things, it's true. Studies probably show that experts have knee-jerk reactions and repeat anecdotes in the place of facts, just like common mortals. They probably also show that health experts continue to engage in risky, thrill-seeking, or unhealthy behavior at the same rate as others, despite 'knowing better.'
I met my wife in the ER the other day after doing a faceplant off her bike that would probably have killed her if she hadn't been wearing a helmet. A nurse at the ER told me she doesn't wear a helmet when she rides her bike. So I'm unsurprised to hear that health stats wonks drink excessively.
It is truly amazing what people can forget... all those disclaimers and different points of view and everything. And the simpler things, such as that mere laypeople like Cosmo are perfectly capable of understanding and correctly interpreting their research.
Goes both ways
Jaywalking peds should stay in their crosswalks ;)
No laws in Boston against riding sidewalks. I usually stick to the street when I ride, but Boston could use a bike-lane overhaul, so sometimes it is the safest alternative.
No laws? Not so.
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 85, Section 11b:
"Section 11B. Every person operating a bicycle upon a way, as defined in section one of chapter ninety, shall have the right to use all public ways in the commonwealth except limited access or express state highways where signs specifically prohibiting bicycles have been posted, and shall be subject to the traffic laws and regulations of the commonwealth and the special regulations contained in this section, except that: (1) the bicycle operator may keep to the right when passing a motor vehicle which is moving in the travel lane of the way, (2) the bicycle operator shall signal by either hand his intention to stop or turn, and (3) bicycles may be ridden on sidewalks outside business districts when necessary in the interest of safety, unless otherwise directed by local ordinance. A person operating a bicycle on the sidewalk shall yield the right of way to pedestrians and give an audible signal before overtaking and passing any pedestrian."
To repeat: outside business districts. For example, NOT ON COMMONWEALTH AVENUE BETWEEN THE BU BRIDGE AND PACKARD'S CORNER. Also please note that stuff about yeilding the right of way on the sidewalk to pedestrians, and giving an audible signal before passing.
While I'm at it, although the same law does state that "the bicycle operator may keep to the right when passing a motor vehicle which is moving in the travel lane of the way", I'm 100% certain that does not mean that a bicyclist is allowed to pass to the right of a bus that has stopped to discharge passengers, such as the cyclist who did exactly that in Brigham Circle yesterday morning as I was trying to get off the 66.
you guys are
really looking for any reason to argue about something you know nothing about, huh? what makes you think that you know every fixed gear rider's intentions when they're out on the road? way to look like a bunch of ignorant twerps. i wonder what it's like being as angry as you all are, that must totally suck. you are all a bunch of judgemental scumbags. i bet you all grew up the "fat kid" in gym class, right? you were always being picked on so now you've got to take any opportunity in reach to try to low-blow others. why don't you stay on topic. the excerpt at the top doesn't specify whether or not the persons involved were on "sick fixies" or milkcrate carting, reflective-vest wearing over-cautious commuters. it just says "bicyclists". which could mean any of you out there. so why don't you people just friggin relax. you're ugly.
fixie trendwhores
Q: Why don't fixie trendwhores have brakes?
A: Their nose rings would get caught on the levers.
The best part is, there is
The best part is, there is no evidence that the 'suspect' was a fixed-gear riding messenger kid. But they have their straw man, so they vent and feel big.
This is no different than what happens on the road with drivers on any given day.
I'm sorry both of them got hurt, but like someone wrote (adamg?) it's karma baby.
I have a single-speed freewheel but I have two brakes, use lights, and wear a helmet.